Parabolic softbox...

T

tysing

Messages
235
Name
Tyrone
Edit My Images
Yes
So I've been thinking about a new modifier. After research I believe a parabolic softbox will give me the light control and contrast etc. To produce the looks I want.
Wondering whether people have any particular suggestions as what to get/avoid etc. I am on a budget, so not looking to spend over £150 also looking for something around the 100cm+ mark.
Cheers
 
Try Lencarta first.

Always happy to help and if they haven't got what you need they are nice enough to point you in other directions, even if it means not getting a sale.
 
tysing said:
So I've been thinking about a new modifier. After research I believe a parabolic softbox will give me the light control and contrast etc. To produce the looks I want.
Wondering whether people have any particular suggestions as what to get/avoid etc. I am on a budget, so not looking to spend over £150 also looking for something around the 100cm+ mark.
Cheers
Click to expand...

To achieve the different looks that a parabolic is known for you need to use it with a front mounted light, the bits to do just that will be close to £100.

Parabolic has become little more than a marketing term.

Mike
 
Mike is right, "parabolic" is, almost invariably, little more than marketing hype.

A true parabolic is a reflector that sends energy (light, sound or heat) in a straight line, i.e. it doesn't spread out over distance. I think that what you're looking for is a deep softbox, which does a good job of projecting the light forwards in an even way, and there's more to it than just depth, so by no means all deep softboxes do a good job. Even with a deep softbox, once diffusers are fitted the light goes out in multiple forward-facing directions, so in the unlikely event that the light started off being parabolic the parabolic effect would cease as soon as it hit the first diffuser.

Lencarta have folding octa softboxes that are deep, with very even lighting. They also have folding beauty dishes that are basically parabolic in effect, and these can also be fitted with diffusers (included) that convert them to softboxes, so two for the price of one:)

I was going to include links, but their site seems to be down for maintenance at the mo :(
 
tysing said:
So I've been thinking about a new modifier. After research I believe a parabolic softbox will give me the light control and contrast etc. To produce the looks I want.
Wondering whether people have any particular suggestions as what to get/avoid etc. I am on a budget, so not looking to spend over £150 also looking for something around the 100cm+ mark.
Cheers
Click to expand...
I've been considering one myself and came across this one
https://www.essentialphoto.co.uk/pr...yXIybga3vHVixRTpwD1mH9jM1Tmo_MNYaAmstEALw_wcB
 
Garry Edwards said:
Not parabolic, the light, as Mike pointed out, needs to face backwards not forwards, unless a deflector is fitted to direct it backwards, which this "parabolic" softbox doesn't have.
Click to expand...
..and yet they term it as Parabolic, I do find all this terminology confusing, so effectively it's a deep folding softbox and nothing more?
 
metroman said:
..and yet they term it as Parabolic, I do find all this terminology confusing, so effectively it's a deep folding softbox and nothing more?
Click to expand...
Yes, just a deep softbox with no benefits that I can see.
I don't feel that the terminology is confusing, the confusion comes from false advertising and from the mis-use of terminology, which has become very common.

The Lencarta website is back up again, the octa folding softboxes are here https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting/studio-softboxes and the beauty dishes are here https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting/beauty-dish-for-studio-flash
 
metroman said:
..and yet they term it as Parabolic, I do find all this terminology confusing, so effectively it's a deep folding softbox and nothing more?
Click to expand...
It appears to be reasonably parabolic in shape, but not in function. A reflector (softbox) only reflects the light directed towards it, with the source pointed outwards/forwards most of the light is directed away from the reflector, and therefore most of the light will not be parallel.

Additionally, a parabolic is only truly parabolic with the light source at a specific distance from the reflector. If the source is too close the light will spread inefficiently, and if placed too far the light will converge/focus (neither is "bad," just not parallel).

Edit: The benefit of a deep modifier is that it gives the light more room to spread, and that tends to result in more even fill. TBH, I think it tends to be more of a hassle than a benefit... they're heavier, they eat up a lot more room, and they catch more wind.
 
Last edited:
metroman said:
..and yet they term it as Parabolic, I do find all this terminology confusing, so effectively it's a deep folding softbox and nothing more?
Click to expand...

They all do this, there aren't many true parabolic designs out there and none of them are especially cheap. I think parabolixlight.com was one, only works out to half the cost of a Bron para after import taxes and fees.
 
sk66 said:
It appears to be reasonably parabolic in shape, but not in function. A reflector (softbox) only reflects the light directed towards it, with the source pointed outwards/forwards most of the light is directed away from the reflector, and therefore most of the light will not be parallel.

Additionally, a parabolic is only truly parabolic with the light source at a specific distance from the reflector. If the source is too close the light will spread inefficiently, and if placed too far the light will converge/focus (neither is "bad," just not parallel).

Edit: The benefit of a deep modifier is that it gives the light more room to spread, and that tends to result in more even fill. TBH, I think it tends to be more of a hassle than a benefit... they're heavier, they eat up a lot more room, and they catch more wind.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that Pixapro parabolic softbox needs this extra mounting bracket to position the light inside, facing the back, to make the parabolic shape perform
https://www.essentialphoto.co.uk/pr...r-deeppara-softboxes-interchangeable-fitting/

Agree about the hassle. While the benefits tend to be illusive, there's no doubting the size of the things - fine in a big, high professional studio (and impressive to clients ;)) but a PITA anywhere else.
 
metroman said:
..and yet they term it as Parabolic, I do find all this terminology confusing, so effectively it's a deep folding softbox and nothing more?
Click to expand...

Parabollic seems to be the new marketing buzz word, used and abused in equal measure, but a parabolic is just the shape of the curve - it's very close to a sphere in shallow profile (eg classic beauty dish https://www.lencarta.com/silver-70cm-beauty-dish-bowens-s-fit-27-inch ) but then flares out to those huge (and costly) things in the Carl Taylor video link. To make them work, the light source (or central deflector/reflector) needs to be at a specific distance from the surface and then all the light is reflected out as a parallel beam. This produces a distinctive look, basically with stronger shadows than a similar size softbox but with a soft edge to them.

With those big parabolics, you can move the light position back and forth to moderate the effect. A way to mimic that is with a parabolic umbrella, eg Elinchrom http://www.theflashcentre.com/elinchrom_deep_105cm_silver_umbrella.html?category_id=647&show_all=1 and just slide it up and down the shaft. Elinchrom's central on-axis umbrella shaft is particularly good for this, and along the same lines Elinchrom offers a (unique?) set of deflectors http://www.theflashcentre.com/elinchrom-new-4-piece-deflector-set-i5399.html?category_id=633 that fit in the same central shaft and produce a similar effect from a softbox with the diffuser front removed.
 
It might be relevant to note that most of the time the para's are not used *as a parabolic*... they are used more for a ring light type of effect w/ the source placed farther away from the back and the light focusing/converging in from the edges. There are other ways of accomplishing (nearly) the same thing that are probably cheaper, and definitely less bulky.

(I bet someone could design an octabox with an inverted back to give the same result in a much more compact and efficient form...)
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Yes, and that Pixapro parabolic softbox needs this extra mounting bracket to position the light inside, facing the back, to make the parabolic shape perform
https://www.essentialphoto.co.uk/pr...r-deeppara-softboxes-interchangeable-fitting/

Agree about the hassle. While the benefits tend to be illusive, there's no doubting the size of the things - fine in a big, high professional studio (and impressive to clients ;)) but a PITA anywhere else.
Click to expand...
You're 100% right. Also, it needs an extremely heavy duty light stand to take the weight.
Lencarta got a sample of these in, I liked it but it wasn't saleable and AFAIK it's still in their studio. The simple fact of the matter is that there are very few studios professional enough and large enough to make use of this type of kit - increasingly, in the UK at least, studios are closing down and getting smaller, and most photographers feel that flashguns and cheap modifiers are the answer to all their problems.
sk66 said:
It might be relevant to note that most of the time the para's are not used *as a parabolic*... they are used more for a ring light type of effect w/ the source placed farther away from the back and the light focusing/converging in from the edges. There are other ways of accomplishing (nearly) the same thing that are probably cheaper, and definitely less bulky.

(I bet someone could design an octabox with an inverted back to give the same result in a much more compact and efficient form...)
Click to expand...
Someone could, but again there's no market for it.
mike weeks said:
Watch the first few minutes of this
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrNpQlabnE&t=856s


Mike
Click to expand...
I don't have much time for Karl Taylor's marketing videos but this one does have accurate and useful info. Again, there's no market for these giant parabolic reflectors. Lencarta used to sell a 170cm version, every bit as good as the equivalent Bron one in terms of finished result, although not as quick to set up and take down, but although it cost nearly £8000 less than the Bron one, it sold very very slowly. I used to use it a lot, for fashion photography, using different reflectors on the flash head and different flash head to reflector distances to achieve very different results. Everyone thought it was a great bit of kit but we used to have a party every time someone actually bought one:)
 
Hi all...
thank you for the detailed replies. I have taken on board what you are saying regarding a true parabolic design, the light should be point backward towards the centre of the softbox.

The reason I was interested in a deep parabolic style octabox. Was after seeing Karl Taylor comparing beauty lighting
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrNpQlabnE


Now I completely understand a get what people are saying regarding to the backward facing light to get the true effect. Unfortunately these are very expensive, and the flash head I'm looking to use with it, is quite heavy. Mounting it in front would make it be quite unstable up high.

So I have been looking at a few cheaper, options. Although I understand I may not get the exactly results I'm after.
The ones I'm looking at are:

Godox P120
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Godox-P120...nt/dp/B074SJ57TT#immersive-view_1503743920212

Jinbei 120
https://m.aliexpress.com/item/32809815541.html

They both, obviously have inner diffusers.
The reason why I'm leaning towards the jinbei one is for the fact of it umbrella like opening mechanism, which is not only quick and easy to open. It will also allow me to put an extra form of reflection in there, in the form of a CD. Right in front of the light to bounce it backwards.

I am looking to use this for a variety of styles. Fashion/dance/portraiture. I would like it to give a fairly concentrated light, soft but with a bit more contrast to it.
Which I believe for some research, that a parabolic will do that, rather than a normal octabox.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on the quality of light produce from some of the "paras" mentioned above and in previous posts.

Thanx
 
Okay, cynics hat on here ;)

If you're looking for a magic bullet, you may be disappointed. You can get some quite different results with one of those big adjustable parabolics, but mostly with the way they're used for best effect the difference is relatively subtle. There are other ways of getting stronger shadows combined with soft light - use a regular double-diffuser softbox with the inner diffuser removed to produce a central hot-spot, or remove both diffusers, or try a simple silver umbrella in different positions. A grid on a softbox can have a similar effect.

Have a look at the Lencarta folding beauty dishes https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting/beauty-dish-for-studio-flash Lots of options in one package there, with a central deflector, two diffuser panels, and a grid to play with.

Bear in mind that with things like this, what you see with the modelling lamp may be significantly different to the actual flash result, and distance can have an influence too.
 
Hi @HoppyUK thanks for you reply. I should add that I do have a couple umbrellas and a stripbox, with a grid... I bought a stripbox instead of a standard shape modifier for its ability to vary its uses. Hence why I'm kinda thinking about a deep octabox instead of regular one. The depth of the modifier must add an element to it, regardless.

So I appreciate the fact I probably need the adjustable backward facing light mechanism to get the most out of a parabolic box. But the
But I guess I wanna know why I wouldn't buy a parabolic over a standard large octabox.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, just a deep softbox with no benefits that I can see.
I don't feel that the terminology is confusing, the confusion comes from false advertising and from the mis-use of terminology, which has become very common.

The Lencarta website is back up again, the octa folding softboxes are here https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting/studio-softboxes and the beauty dishes are here https://www.lencarta.com/studio-lighting/beauty-dish-for-studio-flash
Click to expand...

Hi @Garry Edwards thanks for including the links. They both looks like great options. I guess I was trying to see if a slightly inferior "para octabox" would tick most of the boxes im looking for. To get 4 in 1 modifier.

Always trying to get as much as I can for my money.
 
I have a folding (umbrella type) octabox and I find it to be quite versatile. The main negatives are that the head is inside, so adjustments (power/angle/depth) are a PITA if diffusers/grid are being used, and it has limited adjustments (depth/angle). Power adjustments aren't a problem with RF control, and a boom/c-stand mostly eliminates the positioning issues. I use it with an AD360 primarily, it doesn't work as well with large studio heads.

It's very similar to this one

I also agree with Hoppy, a BD is a very versatile tool. It also tends to be a lot smaller and easier to use on location.
tysing said:
But I guess I wanna know why I wouldn't buy a parabolic over a standard large octabox.
Click to expand...
I can't think of any reason why not for general use... I generally prefer the more circular catchlights.
But there are times where "circular" isn't the ideal shape for controlling falloff/spill, or for reflection/catchlight... sometimes having a harder/linear edge is beneficial.
 
Last edited:
tysing said:
Hi all...
thank you for the detailed replies. I have taken on board what you are saying regarding a true parabolic design, the light should be point backward towards the centre of the softbox.

The reason I was interested in a deep parabolic style octabox. Was after seeing Karl Taylor comparing beauty lighting
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrNpQlabnE


Now I completely understand a get what people are saying regarding to the backward facing light to get the true effect. Unfortunately these are very expensive, and the flash head I'm looking to use with it, is quite heavy. Mounting it in front would make it be quite unstable up high.

So I have been looking at a few cheaper, options. Although I understand I may not get the exactly results I'm after.
The ones I'm looking at are:

Godox P120
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Godox-P120...nt/dp/B074SJ57TT#immersive-view_1503743920212

Jinbei 120
https://m.aliexpress.com/item/32809815541.html

They both, obviously have inner diffusers.
The reason why I'm leaning towards the jinbei one is for the fact of it umbrella like opening mechanism, which is not only quick and easy to open. It will also allow me to put an extra form of reflection in there, in the form of a CD. Right in front of the light to bounce it backwards.

I am looking to use this for a variety of styles. Fashion/dance/portraiture. I would like it to give a fairly concentrated light, soft but with a bit more contrast to it.
Which I believe for some research, that a parabolic will do that, rather than a normal octabox.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on the quality of light produce from some of the "paras" mentioned above and in previous posts.

Thanx
Click to expand...
The Godox one has fibreglass rods, which would rule it out for me, metal rods last, fibreglass ones fail.

The Jinbei one (which isn't made by them) is a better bet, but the Lencarta one https://www.lencarta.com/120cm-profold-folding-octa-softbox has a built in deflector, so wouldn't need your proposed mod of a CD - however I stick with my first suggestion, the Lencarta folding beauty dish, which again has a built in deflector and which also doubles up as a softbox.

But, let's not get too centred on equipment because, as Hoppy has pointed out, differences can be very subtle. I'd go further (because I'm less polite than he is) and say that knowledge almost invariably trumps gear, and a skilled, careful photographer who understands light can get very similar results using a wide range of very different modifiers. Speaking as someone who, until I retired a few months ago, had access to a very wide range of the very best of equipment, all that I can say is that I tended to use whatever was nearest and got the effects I was looking for simply by using whichever tool it happened to be at the right distance and in the right position.
 
Garry Edwards said:
The Godox one has fibreglass rods, which would rule it out for me, metal rods last, fibreglass ones fail.

The Jinbei one (which isn't made by them) is a better bet, but the Lencarta one https://www.lencarta.com/120cm-profold-folding-octa-softbox has a built in deflector, so wouldn't need your proposed mod of a CD - however I stick with my first suggestion, the Lencarta folding beauty dish, which again has a built in deflector and which also doubles up as a softbox.

But, let's not get too centred on equipment because, as Hoppy has pointed out, differences can be very subtle. I'd go further (because I'm less polite than he is) and say that knowledge almost invariably trumps gear, and a skilled, careful photographer who understands light can get very similar results using a wide range of very different modifiers. Speaking as someone who, until I retired a few months ago, had access to a very wide range of the very best of equipment, all that I can say is that I tended to use whatever was nearest and got the effects I was looking for simply by using whichever tool it happened to be at the right distance and in the right position.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is very true what you are saying about knowledge.
as I need to buy a second modifier, I just wanna make sure I get something versatile and of good quality. It seems most people on here aren't really feeling these budget para style octaboxes. It would be nice to see some comparison photos against standard large octaboxes and large beauty dishes. I know Karl Taylor's does quite an indeph one. But that compares the true parabolic boxes. Which I can't really budget for right now

To throw a couple more into the mix...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/371766275695

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/371766267801
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I can't think of any reason why not for general use... I generally prefer the more circular catchlights.
But there are times where "circular" isn't the ideal shape for controlling falloff/spill, or for reflection/catchlight... sometimes having a harder/linear edge is beneficial.
Click to expand...


Thanks.

Well I think witha stripbox and a stars umbrella. The addition of a large para/beauty dish/octabox. Would allow me a lot of room for versatility.

I am kinda liking the idea of a large, folding beauty dish now, using the different layer of diffusion might be just what I need. Hmmm food for thought.

I guess I am just very curious what effect the depth and shape the para will have.
 
Hi Ty - I watched that video from Karl Taylor a while back and tbh my takeaway from that was, apart from the size which affects the quality of the shadows, pretty much all of the modifiers were the same, and the best looking light was from the good ole 150cm octa anyway.. (although a standard beauty shoot may not be the best use case for a large parabolic). Yes you could make the light harder by pulling the light further into the reflector, but then I can just slap on the standard 7" reflector, grids etc and get that, or just use a standard brolly, fully open, partially open etc. Karl has a relationship with Bron and he does like to represent those "Para 123" or "Para 88" as having some unique magical properties. I don't see it myself. You can, as Steven said, position the light in a deep para in the "wrong" place to produce a ring, or usually a ring of light balls as they're made of flat panels. In a reflective subject this will show up (eyes for example)., however in all other cases, you'll struggle to see a difference. Note that a parabolic reflector doesn't work by having the light shine back into it, it needs a "point source" or close to it at a specific place, which causes all the light, no matter where it hits the reflector, to come out in the same direction. There's a large parabolic reflector just down the road from me that collects waves and pushes them to this point - where there is an antenna to receive them. Using it to push light out is the same principle - just in reverse:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/anthonyholloway/17169053621/in/dateposted/ (Picture: Ant Holloway - head of computing at JBCA, Manchester U.) The radio waves all end up just under that red light.

Once you put a diffusion panel on it, it's a softbox. You can pretty much forget any special properties of parabolas once you do this. As Garry, Mike, Steven, Richard said - depth helps get the light even, but that's about it, and tbh, I challenge anyone to notice the difference in a real picture. The light from a softbox comes rom the front diffusion panel - and shines out in many directions from each point on the front panel. I also have one of these http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Neewer-47...254448&hash=item58d04d664d:g:MigAAOSwPCVX3OkS
(mine has different words on the side but looks identical apart from that) I can mount my Safari II inside, bare bulb and get a very even light. Or I can put one or more Speedlights in it. These are very cheap at £23. Not too sturdy of course, but then you won't be too bothered when it falls apart.

I recently tested all my "harder" modifiers and you can see the results here. A speed-light in the back of a Fresnel gives a nice ball of light.
http://owenlloydphotography.com/?p=2750

I think you've arrived at the same conclusion as me - my next large modifiers will be some of those Lencarta folding beauty dishes - very versatile with either the deflector dish or inner diffusion panel and/or outer diffusion. Plus they're near as dammit round, and portable for location shoots. I do sometimes use my white 120cm octa with a takeaway container - bit like a beauty dish. Wrong shape though so I call it the Pie Dish. http://owenlloydphotography.com/?p=476
 
Some brilliant points above, for your desire to try a 'different' modifier, I'd strongly recommend the Lencarta folding BD as above though, portable, versatile, great quality, great VFM.

Edit to say... some great work you have in your portfolio.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Some brilliant points above, for your desire to try a 'different' modifier, I'd strongly recommend the Lencarta folding BD as above though, portable, versatile, great quality, great VFM.

Edit to say... some great work you have in your portfolio.
Click to expand...

Agree. Broadly speaking, the quality of the light is simply defined by physical size. Small reflector dish equals hard light with deeper harder-edged shadows, big softbox equals softer light and lighter shadows with softer edges. Those are the dominant characteristics of any light source and everything else sits somewhere inbetween. Some types, like parabolics, attempt to combine a bit of both and can work well, though TBH the difference in practise is usually relatively subtle and there are other ways of achieving similar results. Some will swear that a parabolic beauty dish is essential for portraits, I don't see it personally and can think of plenty other/better ways of improving a portrait, but on the other hand I can also see the appeal of a big parabolic and if I'd spent a lot of money on one I'm sure I would see something to justify it, real or imagined. And there's nothing like the stimulation of buying something new to drive things along - that's 100% real, and certainly works for me. Go for it ;)

FWIW, I'm in process of revising all my lighting gear, probably going 100% battery-powered Godox with location work in mind, and at the heart of it will be four of those Lencarta Folding Beauty Dishes, for the reasons Phil has outlined. I already have one 80cm silver version, and that'll be joined by another the same, plus one 60cm and one 120cm. I know I can do 90% of all my work with those, plus a couple of gridded stripboxes, a small gridded reflector dish, snoot, and a high-intensity reflector for when needs must.
 
HoppyUK said:
Broadly speaking, the quality of the light is simply defined by physical size.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with that somewhat... it's the "common wisdom" but I find it rather misleading/backwards.
The main factor influencing the "quality of light" is distance. It controls how much light output is required (translucency of highlights/shadows), hardness, and falloff. The only thing *physical* size really controls is how much of an area is lit with that quality of light.
Changing distance does change *relative* size (wrap/area lit), but it also changes all of those other factors... so modifiers that are too small are pretty useless, but larger modifiers can always be flagged/masked smaller.
 
sk66 said:
The only thing *physical* size really controls is how much of an area is lit with that quality of light.
Click to expand...
Hmm I can see what you're getting at however it also changes the quality of shadows from objects lit by the source. Take a look at the 7" reflector with grid, and the beauty dish with grid in the tests I did here: http://owenlloydphotography.com/?p=2750
The distance is the same, and the light pool looks the same, and yet the shadows cast by the c-stand on the background are much softer with a bigger source. If you just flag or mask off a large modifier, it will become a small one and the shadows will get harder. Ie. a large softbox will not continue to produce the same quality of light over a smaller area if you mask a lot of it off.

Changing the distance changes two things at once: the apparent size, and the rate of falloff (intensity over distance). The apparent size of the modifier (from the subject's POV) controls the softness of the shadows (ie the edges of the shadows - how crisp they are etc), So while I would agree you can make any modifier harder by moving further away, this also has the effect of reducing falloff and if you don't want that to happen, just use a bigger modifier. This will create softer shadows and keep a more rapid falloff.
 
tysing said:
So I've been thinking about a new modifier. After research I believe a parabolic softbox will give me the light control and contrast etc. To produce the looks I want.
Wondering whether people have any particular suggestions as what to get/avoid etc. I am on a budget, so not looking to spend over £150 also looking for something around the 100cm+ mark.
Cheers
Click to expand...
WOW, we've come an awful long way since Tyrone's initial posting!
 
Scooter said:
Take a look at the 7" reflector with grid, and the beauty dish with grid in the tests I did here
Click to expand...
A BD and a standard reflector are rather different beasts... looking at those images I can tell that your BD setup is not very even in output/pattern, and it is too close for the light to have unified (distinct double shadows, light coming from different directions creating some "softening").

Scooter said:
Ie. a large softbox will not continue to produce the same quality of light over a smaller area if you mask a lot of it off.
Click to expand...
Actually, it will in terms of translucency/density/falloff... everything except for "wrap" (edge definition/hardness).
 
Last edited:
simonbarker said:
Sounds like you're talking about the same thing. Relative distance to relative size.
Click to expand...
Kind of... distance (which also affects relative size) matters more than physical size.
But I wouldn't say "relative distance"... or relative size for that matter really, that's the part people get messed up. You can't just use a larger modifier (of same design) from farther away and get the same quality of light... it will significantly affect the translucency/density of highlights/shadows, and the rate of falloff... relative size/distance (dictated by physical size) really only controls the area lit with that quality of light (wrap).
 
sk66 said:
A BD and a standard reflector are rather different beasts... looking at those images I can tell that your BD setup is not very even in output/pattern, and it is too close for the light to have unified (distinct double shadows, light coming from different directions creating some "softening").


Actually, it will in terms of translucency/density/falloff... everything except for "wrap" (edge definition/hardness).
Click to expand...

Ok I think we agree here - yes falloff and intensity per given area of the light will be more or less the same but the wrap - i.e. Shadow quality will change with size.

On the BD - the shadows it casts are very much softened (vs the smaller reflectors at the same distance). This effect will be lessened with distance, not enhanced (as the two sides of the dish get closer together from the subject's POV ). Or did you mean they are so far apart it's creating 2 sharp shadows rather than one soft one ? (and I'd agree that is happening) 2.5 metres is much further than I'd normally use this tbh, and yet it works well in beauty/cosmetics shots).

And yes agree it's different in shape and has a deflector vs the other reflectors - there's no grand theory in those tests - just results :)
 
Last edited:
I said 'broadly speaking' size is the dominant factor, and it is. That may be an oversimplification for some, but I deliberately left out relative size and distance etc, because in practical terms they are pretty much fixed for most people. The subject is a certain size, and we have a certain space to work in, so there's isn't much scope to change distance substantially unless you have a very large pro-style studio. But regardless of space considerations, I think I work in much the same way as most studio photographers do, in that if I want a softer light, I use a bigger one (rather than move a smaller light closer) and vice versa by using a smaller light for harder shadows (rather than moving a bigger light further away). Closer working distances also make the light more controllable with less spill everywhere.
 
Scooter said:
Ok I think we agree here - yes falloff and intensity per given area of the light will be more or less the same but the wrap - i.e. Shadow quality will change with size.
Click to expand...
At a given distance a smaller modifier creates the same quality of light within the area it can see (a smaller area). What creates the softer shadow transitions and fill is the edges of a modifier being able to see around an obstruction. I.e. at a given distance a small modifier may create a quality of light only for an area the size of a persons head, where a larger modifier could create the same quality of light for an entire person.
Edit to add: a larger modifier will generally provide more fill as there is more surface seeing around the obstruction/contour (assuming the same placement).
Scooter said:
Or did you mean they are so far apart it's creating 2 sharp shadows rather than one soft one ? (and I'd agree that is happening) 2.5 metres is much further than I'd normally use this tbh, and yet it works well in beauty/cosmetics shots).
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I meant... my BD doesn't do the double shadow thing beyond about 3-4ft.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
I think I work in much the same way as most studio photographers do, in that if I want a softer light, I use a bigger one (rather than move a smaller light closer) and vice versa by using a smaller light for harder shadows (rather than moving a bigger light further away).
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm the odd one then... I tend to change distances more than I change size of modifier. To me the density of the shadows/highlights and the rate of falloff are very significant factors, usually more than how hard edged a shadow is. And no, I do not have a huge studio space... I'm usually working with distances under 6ft. The difference in how an image looks when lit from 5ft vs 2.5ft (and 2 stops less power) can be huge.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top