Beauty dish update

Ralphmyster

Ralphmyster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
415
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
About a month ago I responded to a thread about a beauty dish. I bought one on a Damian McGillicuddy worshop and got I few negative remarks about it, I mentioned it had just won a award but was not sure but now know. It was in advanced photographer.

AWARDED 'BEST IN TEST' by ADVANCED PHOTOGRAPHER MAGAZINE ISSUE 3 - FEBRUARY 2011

Yes that's right, the Damian McGillicuddy designed 19" Collapsible Beauty Dish has scooped the above award through a totally independent product review.

The 19" Beauty Dish comes complete with 2 deflectors, (1 X silver/white & 1 X translucent) and 1 X translucent "soft-box" sock for diffusing the light even further.

It also comes complete with its own stand attachment and universal speed ring. (This allows the Damian McGillicuddy Beauty Dish to be used with ALL speedlights, Elinchrom Ranger Quadra, Quantum Q-Flash & other major equipment manufacturers lights - as illustrated in the product images above)

When collapsed all of its parts fit neatly into the smaLL carry bag provided, which measures 13" X 10". (Click on image above to see exactly how all the parts of the dish are broken down and the carry bag)

Easily assembled & disassembled to allow space-saving transportation for all photographers.

The McGillicuddy Beauty Dish CONSISTENTLY creates perfect beauty light, either in studio or on location.

What a 19" McGillicuddy Beauty Dish users said:

"I've had my McGillicuddy Beauty Dish for almost a year now and I wouldn't go to any shoot without it. However one of the best features of it is the fact that it is modular, and if I need to replace any single part I've accidentally damaged I can do just that, without having to purchase a complete replacement dish."

James M, semi-professional photographer.



What the independent reviewer at ADVANCED PHOTOGRAPHER said:

"This Beauty Dish has been designed by a leading pro and it shows!"

"For portraiture this 19" Beauty Dish is FAULTLESS, giving a lovely directional light but without any hotspots so it can be used up close"

"With all this test gear I had at my disposal for this review, THIS WAS THE 1 ITEM THAT I WASN'T IN A RUSH TO SEND BACK"

I have been using it and works well must say
 
It seems to be very nice. But it's not really a conventional beauty dish, more of a small convertable 19in octagonal softbox. And it costs £190.
 
Last edited:
Oh. A magazine I've never heard of tests a product in its 3rd issue and declares it best in test? Hmm....

Google says Advanced Photographer is Will Cheung's latest venture so it could be pretty good.

What was it tested against? Who did the testing? What were the criteria for testing?

From the bits you quote, a semi professional photographer seems impressed with the fact you can take it to bits. I'm sure there's more to it than that.
 
I thought this looked like a great product and seeing some shots the big dog has taken with it .... nuff said.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Oh. A magazine I've never heard of tests a product in its 3rd issue and declares it best in test? Hmm....

Google says Advanced Photographer is Will Cheung's latest venture so it could be pretty good.
What was it tested against? Who did the testing? What were the criteria for testing?

From the bits you quote, a semi professional photographer seems impressed with the fact you can take it to bits. I'm sure there's more to it than that.
Click to expand...

The excellent Mr Cheung has tested it himself here, on ePhotoZine. He likes it, apart from the price http://www.ephotozine.com/article/damian-mcgillicuddy-beauty-dish-14318

But if you expect a beauty dish to be round, it's not.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
The excellent Mr Cheung has tested it himself here, on ePhotoZine. He likes it, apart from the price http://www.ephotozine.com/article/damian-mcgillicuddy-beauty-dish-14318

But if you expect a beauty dish to be round, it's not.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen that review before. Odd that in a review by Will Cheung, Damian McGillicuddy appears to have taken the pictures.

I'm sure that in his hands it produces beautiful results. The question is whether it would in my hands or not. That's why I'm keen to know what they put it up against and on what criteria they decided it was best.
 
I'm on a mini lights max effect worshop soon with the big dog, I will get the full low down then. On the last worshop he never once try any sales pitch just showed it in action.I took this using one
5479142737
 
Ram,

Many magazine reviews aren't worth squat, even if they're established, respected magazines and even if they know something about the subject - they all try very hard to be detached from the advertising side of the mag, but the fact remains that they also need to keep advertisers and potential advertisers happy.

Also, they will always find something positive to say about any product that they review.

None of this matters of course if you personally think that it's a beauty dish, and if you're happy with the results that you've got with it - the price doesn't matter, nor does the material it's made from, the fact that the lighting effect in your sample shot bears little or no relation to the effect of a beauty dish, or it's shape.

What matters is how you personally feel about it.
 
So true,all my studio equipment is Bowens and was just about to buy there beauty dish. When I used this one on the workshop. He had a bowens one at his workshop but he said that in his tests he believed his gave a better result. Yes they are not cheap but really do feel well made. But surely what its made for and design do have a effect on the image Garry.

He also said " I win awards using my equipment" but a friend of mine has just got a Bowens beauty dish so I will do a like for like shoot and see.
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
Yes, I've seen that review before. Odd that in a review by Will Cheung, Damian McGillicuddy appears to have taken the pictures.

I'm sure that in his hands it produces beautiful results. The question is whether it would in my hands or not. That's why I'm keen to know what they put it up against and on what criteria they decided it was best.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're driving at Jonners but I have also seen pictures of Will actually using that product for a commercial job. So what if DM supplied some images?

You have a fair comment about the products it was reviewed against though, which were a little Lumiquest SBIII, the small Lastolite Ezybox 22cm version, and Elemental 50cm softbox. And from those, I think I would choose the McGillicuddy BD too ;)

I'm sure it would produce great results in your hands! It's really a very simple light modifier - no rocket science involved, either in the making or the using. Rather a nice idea actually - not quite a beauty dish in the conventional sense, and not cheap either, but there aren't many modifiers where you can fire a hot-shoe gun into an open softbox with a deflector and get beauty dish light out of the front :shrug: I imagine it's quite efficient too.

Garry Edwards said:
Ram,

Many magazine reviews aren't worth squat, even if they're established, respected magazines and even if they know something about the subject - they all try very hard to be detached from the advertising side of the mag, but the fact remains that they also need to keep advertisers and potential advertisers happy.

Also, they will always find something positive to say about any product that they review.

None of this matters of course if you personally think that it's a beauty dish, and if you're happy with the results that you've got with it - the price doesn't matter, nor does the material it's made from, the fact that the lighting effect in your sample shot bears little or no relation to the effect of a beauty dish, or it's shape.

What matters is how you personally feel about it.
Click to expand...

Garry, if magazine reviews "aren't worth squat" then why does your Lencarta site quote reviews from no less than six different magazines? Is that just the ones you advertise in? :p

Yes, of course they usually say nice things about products! You can't review everything so, if the editor has any sense, they will only choose good products to test in the first place. There just isn't room to talk about rubbish, and neither is it very helpful to readers.

And if there was any pandering to advertisers going on, the McGillicuddy BD would not have come top ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
Garry, if magazine reviews "aren't worth squat" then why does your Lencarta site quote reviews from no less than six different magazines? Is that just the ones you advertise in? :p

Yes, of course they usually say nice things about products! You can't review everything so, if the editor has any sense, they will only choose good products to test in the first place. There just isn't room to talk about rubbish, and neither is it very helpful to readers.

And if there was any pandering to advertisers going on, the McGillicuddy BD would not have come top ;)
Click to expand...
Richard, that isn't what I said. What I (clearly) said was "Many magazine reviews aren't worth squat"
Like many people, I've gone through a learning process with this and any products that go for review now only go to what I consider to be the better magazines.
if the editor has any sense, they will only choose good products to test in the first place. There just isn't room to talk about rubbish, and neither is it very helpful to readers.
Click to expand...
That may have been true when you were personally involved with magazines but I'm not sure that it is now. There are now an unbelievable number of titles, all competing for much the same readers, most are showing a serious drop in sales and they are all fighting hard to add content, so are very keen to review all sorts of products.

Edit: Lencarta doesn't advertise in many magazines, and has only advertised in a few of the magazines that have reviewed the products.
 
Last edited:
Well sounds like a fun thing to review, post the images and see if anyone can tell the difference between,
Bowens / Interfit / Lencarta / bessel / and any more I can get hold of.

He earns a livin taking photos not designing things. He said " he earns more on one shoot than he makes on these". He also said he gets offers every day to use a brand, but says No. Is there really a brand out there who would not want to put his name next to using there equiment. I will admit that this is my only beauty dish I have owned and so my thoughts may not be valid, so I will have to compare with others before I can judge the end result.
 
Kris
It is quite expensive, but it really is well made stuff. don't think it will fall apart after ten times. It fits in a tiny bag, quick easy to put together.
 
Ralphmyster said:
Well sounds like a fun thing to review, post the images and see if anyone can tell the difference between,
Bowens / Interfit / Lencarta / bessel / and any more I can get hold of.
Click to expand...
I challenge anyone to tell the difference between any beauty dish of the same size made by (or sold by) any manufacturer.

Yes, they may all have subtle differences, especially in the modifiers that can be fitted to them, but the differences in results are going to be down to the photographer, not the equipment.

Choice of equipment should always be based primarily on the style of the photographer - what s/he wants to, and is capable of achieving, not on the brand or price, and not on which famous names may use it. If you spend more then hopefully you'll get a better designed product, possibly with a better finish and it may fit your flash head better than a cheap copy - but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will produce better shots. Leaving flash heads out of it (because flash heads that produce the same colour and quantity of light every time really is important) skilled photographers (and especially commercial photographers, whose clients don't care about appearances) can usually get exactly the effect they want even if they don't have the 'right' tool for the job - it just takes more knowledge, more skill and more time.

I've spent a lot of years writing books, articles and tutorials and making videos in the hope that I can de-mystify lighting and help people learn the so-called 'black art'. It really all boils down to just 2 things...
1. Understanding the nature of light and how to control it
2. Creativity

Of course, other important things come into play too, like space, budget, time, the right models, good retouching skills - but although all of these things matter, they are all secondary to knowledge and creativity.
 
Garry

Thats a bit of an unfair challenge

quote" I challenge anyone to tell the difference between any beauty dish of the same size made by (or sold by) any manufacturer." Unquote.
Who in their right mind would go out and purchase several beauty dishes, set them all up under the same conditions, to see if there is any difference between makes.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Garry

Thats a bit of an unfair challenge

quote" I challenge anyone to tell the difference between any beauty dish of the same size made by (or sold by) any manufacturer." Unquote.
Who in their right mind would go out and purchase several beauty dishes, set them all up under the same conditions, to see if there is any difference between makes.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

That isn't what I meant.
What I meant is that if (say) 6 different people post a photo each, all taken with different beauty dishes, I challenge anyone to identify the make of the beauty dish used
 
HoppyUK said:
You have a fair comment about the products it was reviewed against though, which were a little Lumiquest SBIII, the small Lastolite Ezybox 22cm version, and Elemental 50cm softbox. And from those, I think I would choose the McGillicuddy BD too ;)
Click to expand...

careful now, You'll have a certain company MD getting out of his pram, you 'dissed his product! :dummy:

Garry, can you try not to suggest that magazines only give good reviews to advertisers please (though you only advertise with magazines that gave you good reviews?) You know how much bother that caused last time, we'll have emails copied into PR companies again...
 
If I recall the last thread asked if someone could recommend q Beaty dish thats when I suggested this dish. Some comments where more about the cost and design. So the cost ok in not cheap but I am sure it you had one you would agree it's not cheap crap, design well surely big dogs pictures using it speaks for it's self. Now onto a review I agree with Garry to a degree but I don't know if a magazine would give it an award just to keep his business surely they would of given the award to lastolite who's Market share is vast compared to his.
 
Kris said:
How heffin' much?

http://www.art4artssake.co.uk/category-2/0075.html

"99% of your light modification needs in one ever-so-handy unit."

Really?

And these

http://www.art4artssake.co.uk/category-2/003.html

look rather like these, only with less panels...

http://www.viewfinderphotography.co...nel-Kit-with-Ballhead-5-Panels-100x180cm.html

and three times the price.
Click to expand...

Your right, its called Re-inventing the Wheel, giving it a posh name and adding 400% on to the price.

looking at what is behind him I have an Octobox about the same size bought 3 years ago for £40 and a larger one that still only cost £70 (and its about 1.5 meter tall?).

The light panel-blocker I bought 4 years ago and it cost about £50 though admittedly mine looks a better build quality then the one on viewfinder photography but is on an equal par with what McGuillicuddy has on offer.

Sometimes I say and think you get what you pay for, other times your paying for a name and that only.
Personally when it comes to light modifiers and such I look for a balance between the 2.

And I have bought expensive ones and cheep ones and tested them to see what the results were and the differences were either none existent or minute.
 
matty said:
careful now, You'll have a certain company MD getting out of his pram, you 'dissed his product! :dummy:

Garry, can you try not to suggest that magazines only give good reviews to advertisers please (though you only advertise with magazines that gave you good reviews?) You know how much bother that caused last time, we'll have emails copied into PR companies again...
Click to expand...
For clarification, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that magazines are unlikely to give bad reviews to advertisers or to potential advertisers.

As for Lencarta, adverts are placed in magazines that are thought likely to work, regardless of whether they have reviewed the products or not, and giving a good review won't result in advertising unless it's likely to bring in enough new customers to justify the expense, as with magazines that haven't reviewed the products - there's no mutual backscratching involved.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I challenge anyone to tell the difference between any beauty dish of the same size made by (or sold by) any manufacturer.

Yes, they may all have subtle differences, especially in the modifiers that can be fitted to them, but the differences in results are going to be down to the photographer, not the equipment.

Choice of equipment should always be based primarily on the style of the photographer - what s/he wants to, and is capable of achieving, not on the brand or price, and not on which famous names may use it. If you spend more then hopefully you'll get a better designed product, possibly with a better finish and it may fit your flash head better than a cheap copy - but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will produce better shots. Leaving flash heads out of it (because flash heads that produce the same colour and quantity of light every time really is important) skilled photographers (and especially commercial photographers, whose clients don't care about appearances) can usually get exactly the effect they want even if they don't have the 'right' tool for the job - it just takes more knowledge, more skill and more time.

I've spent a lot of years writing books, articles and tutorials and making videos in the hope that I can de-mystify lighting and help people learn the so-called 'black art'. It really all boils down to just 2 things...
1. Understanding the nature of light and how to control it
2. Creativity

Of course, other important things come into play too, like space, budget, time, the right models, good retouching skills - but although all of these things matter, they are all secondary to knowledge and creativity.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to come to the same conclusion. I've used expensive lights and modifiers (Profoto) and also Lencarta lights in a studio last week. The difference in perceived 'light quality' seems to be minimal. I've taken images with both systems that I really liked. I haven't carried out any kind of objective tests side by side but I just think it's possible to make decent images with (almost) any light system.

My own opinion is that the 'light quality' thing is just marketing hype that the more expensive brands use. However, the light consistency is great with the Profoto. Worth paying through the nose for? I say probably not unless you're a full time commercial photographer. The difference lies in the ruggedness, ease of use. You just know that it's going to fire every time and there's no waiting for it to recharge. Oh, and the modifiers and mounting system are superb.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Not sure what you're driving at Jonners but I have also seen pictures of Will actually using that product for a commercial job. So what if DM supplied some images?
Click to expand...

Um, OK.

I was somewhat surprised that an "independent review" of an item could ever possibly have been conducted with the inventor hovering over the reviewer. It's certainly not normal and even disregarding the possibility of bias there's the issue of how to use it - does the dish really come with a day's 1:1 to make sure you get the best out of it? If not it's extremely legitimate to investigate the instructions and ease of use out of the box.

There are 3 pictures on the review. 2 were taken by Damien McGillicudy (or I assume so as he's clearly visible in the setup - actually the second says that Will took it but Damian set the lights up which is a very similar thing). These give a good indication of the lighting. There's one other rather wishy washy image which you can't expand which doesn't even look particularly like it was lit with flash - let alone a £200 wonder modifier.

I want more ;)

HoppyUK said:
You have a fair comment about the products it was reviewed against though, which were a little Lumiquest SBIII, the small Lastolite Ezybox 22cm version, and Elemental 50cm softbox. And from those, I think I would choose the McGillicuddy BD too ;)
Click to expand...

I'd hope it would win that too. 3 small softboxes vs a product that promises so much more and costs as much as all the others put together.

Garry Edwards said:
Choice of equipment should always be based primarily on the style of the photographer - what s/he wants to, and is capable of achieving, not on the brand or price, and not on which famous names may use it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Which is why I'd want to know the criteria for judging.

IIRC I once mentioned to you that the Lencarta 70 cm beauty dish was just a little too big. You said you thought it was a bit small. You work in a studio and I was trying to get it in my boot.

I love the light from the 150 folding octa but it's a pain to collapse it every time you want to go through a door :)

Here's a BTS from yesterday....


Kingsgate Chapel by Paulo Rodrigues (London UK), on Flickr

Ralphmyster said:
Some comments where more about the cost and design. So the cost ok in not cheap
Click to expand...

It's not - and I wouldn't expect it to be. People tend to underestimate the cost involved in designing something from scratch, prototyping it, testing, getting it manufactured in the "right" quantity and distributed. That's why it upsets me to see people ripping off an established design like the fake Fong Dongs on eBay.

To be clear - if I thought it would give me the results of a beauty dish in a handy, folding, easy to assemble package that worked with all my lights then I'd be very interested. Even at the prices shown.
 
is that a beauty dish or octabox?
 
strobemonkey said:
is that a beauty dish or octabox?
Click to expand...

That's an octa box - the shape gives it away ;)

For other shots at this location I really wanted a beauty dish but I had enough trouble getting an octa through the doors and up the stairs of a ruined building...

ETA: plus with a head and octa a nano stand bends quite alarmingly. With a BD it might actually break...
 
Last edited:
Ah got you.

The manufacturer calls it a folding beauty dish. It shares many of the design properties of an octa box ;) Though the inner baffle is slightly novel (can't recall seeing that done in that way in an octa though Elinchrom achieve the same via a different route).

I've not so far seen any shots that separate it from a well made and somewhat pricey octabox. Very unclear to me what lights the big boxes fit to. If it's a single speedlight that could be interesting.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Um, OK.

I was somewhat surprised that an "independent review" of an item could ever possibly have been conducted with the inventor hovering over the reviewer. It's certainly not normal and even disregarding the possibility of bias there's the issue of how to use it - does the dish really come with a day's 1:1 to make sure you get the best out of it? If not it's extremely legitimate to investigate the instructions and ease of use out of the box.

There are 3 pictures on the review. 2 were taken by Damien McGillicudy (or I assume so as he's clearly visible in the setup - actually the second says that Will took it but Damian set the lights up which is a very similar thing). These give a good indication of the lighting. There's one other rather wishy washy image which you can't expand which doesn't even look particularly like it was lit with flash - let alone a £200 wonder modifier.

I want more ;)

<snip>
Click to expand...

You are being very suspicious Jonners ;) But first, for the benefit of the jury, let's be clear about which review you are talking about.

The OP is referring to a comparison review of the McGuillicuddy BD in Advanced Photographer magazine, written by Dan Pluck and edited by Will Cheung, in which the McGillicuddy came 'Best in Test'. In your comments above, you are referring to a review of the same McGillicuddy BD by Will Cheung himself on the web-mag ePHOTOzine, where it was "thoroughly recommended". Both reviews cited the price as a negative.

You seem to have a problem with McGillicuddy being present during part of the review process conducted for ePHOTOzine. However, he doesn't appear to be invloved with the Advanced Photographer test. So these are two independent reviews by two different testers, but they both came to the same conclusion that the McGillicuddy BD was rather good, and better than the others tested even though it has to be said they are a lot cheaper.

Now you can take issue with that conclusion if you like, but as I said above there are clear design reasons why the McGillycuddy should perform better and which at least go some way to explaining the cost, in particular, the (reversable) deflector. That is an unusual and clever design trick which I have not seen before in a range of products for hot shoe guns, ranging from 19in to 48in, and including nice accessories like the double diffusers, grids and a circular mask and square mask fronts. The bigger versions don't get any cheaper mind! :eek: Call them beauty dishes or octo-softboxes or whatever, but they do seem to be innovative and versatile, well designed and made.

Then let's look at the implications of commercial motives in magazine reviews. I guess it happens, but not here. As I said above, magazine space is very costly and you simply can't afford to waste it on dissing rubbish. So the starting point is always to pick good products in the first place if you can, and publish something helpful and positive for the reader. Any form of duplicity always catches you out, usually sooner rather than later in this age of instant multi-media - as this thread testifies. It is just not a sustainable approach even if some bad magazines might fall foul of that temptation occasionally.

And where is the evidence for it here? If there was, the best in test award would have gone to Lumiquest or Lastolite. What's the problem with McGillicuddy himself appearing in the pictures, or supplying them? It's common practise for manufacturers to cooperate and supply material like that, and if they're good and do the job, it would be a bit of a waste of time to do them all again for some spurious reason of editorial independence (although I guess if you were trying to dupe anybody with a suspicious nature or fox a cynical advertiser, that is the first thing you would do ;)).

And then there is the redoubtable Editor Cheung. I have worked with Will professionally for most of the last 25 years, and continue to do so. He is the best. You don't get head hunted to launch a new enthusiast magazine (Advanced Photographer) without being pretty good at what you do, and I can think of nobody better.

To be clear - if I thought it would give me the results of a beauty dish in a handy, folding, easy to assemble package that worked with all my lights then I'd be very interested. Even at the prices shown.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I think it might just do those things - and a few more besides. Worth a look ;)
 
Yeah I'm bored now.

You're right - we're talking about a review I haven't read on a product I'll probably never buy.

500 quid is a little too spendy for me for a hotshoe based softbox (I see no evidence it will fit any studio head I have). I could get a Bruce Dorn asymmetric strip bank for that. Actually I could get 2. And that would genuinely let me do stuff no other modifier can.
 
If I had a budget of £500 for a beauty dish it would go on a MOLA, not an octabox with a deflector in it....or if I desperately wanted a foldable beauty dish ESQUE light I would spend less than half the money and get an Elinchrom rotalux octa and stick a deflector in it....

I dont understand the market for this thing it's ridiculously overpriced....
 
Well I commented about this thread to the Big Dog himself with a link, just maybe he will en lighten us who knows. I think that one of the problems here is very few people have one or use one to give judgement really.
 
Well, I won't pretend to be a fan of what seems to me to be an expensive softbox that costs extra because it's lost its front diffuser, but for those who are more open minded than me, it seems that it's going to be demonstrated at Focus:)

Pinched from elsewhere, with apologies to E

If you plan to attend Focus on Imaging at Birmingham's NEC 6 - 9 March, then make sure you visit Bright Publishing's stand (E18) where you can meet ePHOTOzine's founder Peter Bargh, and take part in daily demos shooting a classic Triumph and a model using the new Olympus PEN and McGillicuddy Beauty Dish. You'll have the chance to chat with Damian McGillicuddy and enter the daily prize draws where you could win an Olympus SZ10 camera!

You can catch one of Damian McGillicuddy's demos 4 times a day, every day for the entire show.

There's also an exclusive subscription offer available to ePHOTOzine members for Advanced Photographer. You can find more information about this exclusive subscription offer below.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top