OK... I know who makes these and we were given one to test over 3 years ago, we tested it and rejected it, for the reasons given. I can't remember what size it was and can't check because we binned it, but I'm pretty certain that it was smaller than the one you have in mind.
I can't agree with this. Many years ago I worked for a leading advertising studio in Germany that was equipped with 1.5m beauty dishes (plus smaller ones) and they were great. There were practical problems (due to size and weight) but with the type of photography we did, and because we had very high ceilings, they were a great tool. From memory, I think they were hand made specifically for this studio.
• If a soft light is used at more than close range (0,75~1,50 m) then it is no longer
a softlight but just an other reflector.
• The same thing goes for any size wrapping umbrella or octo, if used over a given
distance, the wrapping effect is gone and it is just an other light source.
These two points can be tested/proven by anyone with an umbrella or a softlight at
home or in studio with any type of light source.
Your statement re distance isn't entirely wrong, in the sense that it can sometimes be right, but it's far too broad a statement.
The reality is that a 'soft' light is a light that is
effectively larger than the subject that it illuminates. If it is larger, then light is hitting the subject from a large number of different points and some of that light is coming from the sides/top/bottom, so creates the wraparound effect that you mention.
But, every time we double the light source to subject distance, the effective size of the light source reduces to a quarter, which is line with the Inverse Square Law, and although almost everyone understands the effect of the ISL in relation to the reduction of effective light power, not everyone understands the effect that it has on effective light source size.
So, your statement that
• If a soft light is used at more than close range (0,75~1,50 m) then it is no longer
a softlight but just an other reflector.
• The same thing goes for any size wrapping umbrella or octo, if used over a given
distance, the wrapping effect is gone and it is just an other light source.
is only true if the increase in light source to subject causes the effective size of the light source tobe smaller than it needs to be to produce the effect that it is intended to achieve - which is why the 1.5m beauty dishes that I mentioned earlier were so useful - they allowed a much greater light source to subject distance without losing the qualities of a beauty dish. Obviously, a beauty dish of that size would be impracticable in a home studio because, apart from the weight, size and cost, a home studio would have far too low a ceiling.
In the same way, a large reflective umbrella can be incredibly useful in a large studio. I have
one of these in the Lencarta studio, regardless of any fancy names that are given to these things, it's a large reflective umbrella
with a near-parabolic shape, and it comes into its own when I want a specular light for fashion photography but where I need it to be large enough to allow for the necessary movement of the model.
The soft/hard effect is almost entirely due to the combination of size and distance, this is governed by the immutable laws of physics, but some practical variations do occur. For example, a softbox or beauty dish does not become 'harder' or 'softer' simply because it has a silver or white interior, but when the interior is silver it does become more specular. In theory, the same thing applies when a softbox is used without diffusion, but in practice, even at the same distance, a softbox does become 'softer' when fitted with diffusion, simply because the diffuser spreads the light over a larger area - and the smaller and lighter coloured the studio is, the more unplanned light bounces from walls and the ceiling, making the light look even softer. But, with properly designed beauty dishes, the shape is nearly parabolic and there is a hard(ish) cut off of light from it and unwanted light doesn't bounce around as it does when produced by either a softbox or an umbrella - it's a more precise tool which, in the right circumstances/usage, produces a light quality like no other - which of course can be either good or bad.
Back to topic. As already discussed, the first product is not a beauty dish and is nothing like a beauty dish - but this doesn't mean that it's a bad light source - unless what you need is a beauty dish
