Parabolic Softboxes

M

mike weeks

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,881
Name
mike
Edit My Images
No
Is there any advantage to using these with a rear mounted light?

Now if my understanding is correct they come into their own when the light is shot into them from the front and then the position of the light in relation to the softbox allows you to focus/defocus the light.

And yes I know that a lot of what is being marketed as parabolic is probably not really parabolic

Mike
 
mike weeks said:
Is there any advantage to using these with a rear mounted light?

Now if my understanding is correct they come into their own when the light is shot into them from the front and then the position of the light in relation to the softbox allows you to focus/defocus the light.

And yes I know that a lot of what is being marketed as parabolic is probably not really parabolic

Mike
Click to expand...
This is a question I've been pondering too. I've got a rear mounted one on my shopping list, but I've not seen anything that mathematically proves a worth. Although I am looking at the 16 sided one which also has benefits re catchlights.
 
mike weeks said:
Is there any advantage to using these with a rear mounted light?
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume not but if it's well designed shouldn't it be slightly more efficient than a conventional softbox? I'd want to see how consistent the output is to the front diffuser though.

On the bright side if we see more parabolic designs it's only a matter of time before someone makes a generic focusing system for them, I'm surprised this hasn't happened already (the design from the Bowens Octas could be done pretty easily/cheaply).
 
mike weeks said:
Looks like the copycats have missed copying the functionality, i.e. giving it a name does not make it do the job.

Mike
Click to expand...
The other question of course is whether what we need is actually a parabolic? Or do the 'parabolic' products we can buy do a job that would work for us?

I think you could do interesting focussing experiments with the remote head of the AD600 or an AD360 for that matter (it's not that big)
 
mike weeks said:
giving it a name does not make it do the job.
Click to expand...
•

:agree:


Oh yes, they do offer a lot… if well made. I'm not talking
about the built nor the material but the design.

I made the jump some years ago and, as I did pull out quite
some dough for it, my expectations were high. It broke my
heart to pay as much for a modifier than I did for the D3X but
I had to.

It does make a big difference but the versatility of the tool
really resides in the size. To save a lot of money, I even
went to Nederland where a friend was letting me play in his
studio with the 180 cm white reflector. He explained that he
wanted to use it as fill. I thought more as main and my prefe-
rence goes for the silver, as always. After supper, he said that
if he could return in time, he would go for the white 300.

One can always soften a light source, make it smaller, etc but
it is not easy to go the opposite way. So, I went for the silver
300 cm knowing that I will not think I did the wrong move.

It does everything:
  • it can be focalized for wide spread or hot spot
  • may act as a giant soft light reflector (BD) a soft box and
    it is even a ginormous ring-flash
…all in one. The applications are multiple and their effect is size
dependant. When my friend from up north came to visit the wine
country, he had a go with it.
 
Last edited:
Thinking aloud and applying logic that is probably unique to me. Can I suggest that any "Parabolicability" becomes irrelevant as soon as you put the diffusing layers onto the soft box.
In the same way the a beauty dish is no longer a beauty dish when you put a difuser on it.

Comments from people with names like @HoppyUK and @Garry Edwards particularly welcome. :)
 
Last edited:
Graham W said:
Can I suggest that any "Parabolicabilaty" becomes irrelevant as soon as you put the diffusing layers onto the soft box.
In the same way the a beauty dish is no longer a beauty dish when you put a difuser on it.
Click to expand...
•


Yes, you're right in both cases!

The idea to soften the light source, soft-light or parabolic, just
adds to the possibilities…

The soft-light becomes a great little soft box when working on
products as is throws more light than say a real small soft box.

The large parabolic turns into a soft box but a three meter one!
 
Last edited:
There is one benefit to a truly parabolic reflector... and that is a large/hard light source (all light parallel). Most don't actually want that (hard/parallel), and if you do there are numerous other ways to get the result (but less convenient).

In truth, the shape alone is not what makes it a "parabolic reflector"... it is the shape combined with a specific/fixed placement of the source. If the source is not at that distance it is just an ellipsoidal reflector. All ellipsoidal reflectors have two focus points, the point of origin and the point of convergence (focus). A typical modifier like an umbrella has the point of origin also (nearly) at the point of convergence (light is reflected back 180*).

With a parabolic the point of origin is placed so that the point of convergence nears infinity, so everything within practical distances is essentially parallel. When you move the source (origin) closer to the reflector it moves the point of convergence closer, causing it to "focus" closer (but it is no longer functioning as "parabolic"). If you move the source even closer yet the point of convergence moves even closer, to the point where they are the same and you get "scatter" similar to the basic umbrella.

The true benefit of an adjustable parabolic is the ability to change what it does, if you know how to use/adjust it. You can get large "hard" light (truly parabolic), "focused" BD effect (not parabolic), and "soft" scatter (not parabolic).
If you have modifiers that already do these things, then you don't actually *need* an adjustable parabolic. If the point of origin is not adjustable/is improperly placed then it is not "parabolic."

And yes anytime you "modify" the light, it becomes "something different." I.e. a BD (parabolic) with a sock is not a BD, and a softbox with a grid is not as "soft."
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
There is one benefit to a truly parabolic reflector... and that is a large/hard light source (all light parallel). Most don't actually want that (hard/parallel), and if you do there are numerous other ways to get the result (but less convenient).

In truth, the shape alone is not what makes it a "parabolic reflector"... it is the shape combined with a specific/fixed placement of the source. If the source is not at that distance it is just a spherical reflector. All spherical reflectors have two focus points, the point of origin and the point of convergence (focus). A typical modifier like an umbrella has the point of origin also (nearly) at the point of convergence (light is reflected back 180*).

With a parabolic the point of origin is placed so that the point of convergence nears infinity, so everything within practical distances is essentially parallel. When you move the source (origin) closer to the reflector it moves the point of convergence closer, causing it to "focus" closer (but it is no longer functioning as "parabolic"). If you move the source even closer yet the point of convergence moves even closer, to the point where they are the same and you get "scatter" similar to the basic umbrella.

The true benefit of a parabolic is the ability to change what it does, if you know how to use/adjust it. You can get large "hard" light (truly parabolic), "focused" BD effect (not parabolic), and "soft" scatter (not parabolic).
If you have modifiers that already do these things, then you don't actually *need* an adjustable parabolic. If the point of origin is not adjustable/improperly placed then it is not "parabolic."

And yes anytime you "modify" the light, it becomes "something different." I.e. a BD (parabolic) with a sock is not a BD, and a softbox with a grid is not as "soft."
Click to expand...
Yes.
parabola.jpg

The design is paramount, and any diffusion that is added to it effectively destroys the parabolic effect.

Most of the light shapers that are sold as "parabolic" aren't, it's just a mis-used and over-used marketing term. And, when it comes to softboxes, all that "parabolic" usually means is that it's deep and expensive.
 
Graham W said:
Thinking aloud and applying logic that is probably unique to me. Can I suggest that any "Parabolicability" becomes irrelevant as soon as you put the diffusing layers onto the soft box.
In the same way the a beauty dish is no longer a beauty dish when you put a difuser on it.

Comments from people with names like @HoppyUK and @Garry Edwards particularly welcome. :)
Click to expand...

FWIW, I think parabolic and beauty dish are just marketing terms. Or bull crap, to be blunt.

The science of true parabolics and beauty dishes is interesting though difficult to achieve in practise with regular studio equipment. Which makes me think that if there were real, significant benefits, then regular studio equipment would be designed to exploit them.

Either way, I have yet to see a convincing demonstation. Steven sk66 had a good go at it recently and posted a lot of comparisons and explanations but TBH they did nothing for me with subtle differences that I couldn't see taking my studio work forward by even a small step for man. There are plenty more important things on my shopping list, things that can and do make a big difference.
 
mike weeks said:
parabolic reflectors/softboxes are a bit like pop up beauty dishes
Click to expand...


Yes, but much, much more.

The soft-light will do its very limited but spectacular magic
in only very restricted conditions.

The large parabolic has a far greater field of application, a
wider spectrum of effects, and demonstrate its talents in
many shooting conditions. It's the most flexible and perfor-
ming light modifier in my wide arsenal.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Yes, but much, much more.

The soft-light will do its very limited but spectacular magic
in only very restricted conditions.

The large parabolic has a far greater field of application, a
wider spectrum of effects, and demonstrate its talents in
many shooting conditions. It's the most flexible and perfor-
ming light modifier in my wide arsenal.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the whole point of my answer, I know what the modifiers are, I know what they should do but you missed the irony out of your quote.

Mike
 
mike weeks said:
you missed the irony out of your quote.
Click to expand...
•


You're right, I did not see that at all… sorry!

For possible next times, how do I recognize
that someone is being ironic?
 
mike weeks said:
so the general consensus is that parabolic reflectors/softboxes are a bit like pop up beauty dishes then i.e. not what they try to be

Mike
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that I agree that those I have seen offer little if any improvement over a traditional, deep softbox of another design, and are not truly parabolic anyway, and even if they were truly parabolic, the parabolic effect is almost entirely destroyed by fitting diffusers. This doesn't mean that they aren't good softboxes, it just means that IMO they have few if any benefits to offer.

No, in the sense that I don't entirely accept your premise that folding beauty dishes are not what they try to be. That is in fact true of nearly all, but both Chimera and ourselves have come up with a 16 rib version that does what it says on the tin - it's the more cheaply made (although not always cheaply sold) 8 rib ones that can't work as expected because they send light off in all directions except the right one.

In fact, I would go further and say that ours (and the Chimera) are better than most of the metal beauty dishes, because they are as close to parabolic as we can get.
I say "most" because the only truly parabolic design of metal beauty dish is the Mola, it's far too expensive for most people to buy but it's expensive for a reason.
Coming down a bit, the Bowens version isn't bad, and neither is ours.
Most though aren't real beauty dishes at all, they are tooled by Chinese factories that made the shape for industrial lighting! - it's much cheaper to do that, even though it doesn't work, than to make new tooling for a shape that does work, and the factories that make them neither know nor care what's actually required.
HoppyUK said:
FWIW, I think parabolic and beauty dish are just marketing terms. Or bull crap, to be blunt.

The science of true parabolics and beauty dishes is interesting though difficult to achieve in practise with regular studio equipment. Which makes me think that if there were real, significant benefits, then regular studio equipment would be designed to exploit them.

Either way, I have yet to see a convincing demonstation. Steven sk66 had a good go at it recently and posted a lot of comparisons and explanations but TBH they did nothing for me with subtle differences that I couldn't see taking my studio work forward by even a small step for man. There are plenty more important things on my shopping list, things that can and do make a big difference.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with Richard (Hoppy) although I don't entirely disagree either. I know that a well-designed specialist product DOES produce a very different quality of light to other tools. For example, a beauty dish cannot be emulated by an umbrella, a softbox or anything else. But, I accept that because properly-designed ones are rare, and the badly designed ones don't work, I understand why he says this. Again, if he compared the very best, properly designed beauty dishes then I think that he would agree with me - and, as always, I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is :)
 
I think the point Richard is making (and I mostly agree) is that there are basically only two types of light... "hard" and "soft" with variations in between. There are a lot of ways to create that w/o specialty modifiers, and just switching modifier isn't necessarily a big change in itself. Combine that with lighting ratios/mix reducing the appearance of the effects and it often get's to be pretty fine.

It's like using a grid on a softbox to make it harder... you do that because you want the size and falloff which you would loose by moving the softbox, or because you can't move the softbox (spill/space). But it is not at all apparent in the image that is what was done (or why), and it's not necessarily the only way it could have been accomplished.
Plus, I think a lot of these refinements often only really matter to photographers, kind of like ISO noise and pixel level sharpness... yeah, they matter, but not enough to make/break an image.

However, I do think that a true (or close enough) adjustable parabolic is a *very* versatile light source... if you understand how it works.
But, FWIW... I don't personally own one.
 
sk66 said:
I think the point Richard is making (and I mostly agree) is that there are basically only two types of light... "hard" and "soft" with variations in between. There are a lot of ways to create that w/o specialty modifiers, and just switching modifier isn't necessarily a big change in itself. Combine that with lighting ratios/mix reducing the appearance of the effects and it often get's to be pretty fine. <snip>
Click to expand...

This is pretty much where I'm at: big light = soft, small light = hard, and nobody would argue with that. What I'm not getting (at least so far) is that there is a third way, that combines a bit of both kinds of light - soft, yet with more clearly defined shadows. This is what beauty dishes and other parabolics are supposed to do, but I've yet to see a convincing demonstration that shows real and significant practical benefits. My mind is open though ;)

Garry Edwards said:
<snip>

I don't agree with Richard (Hoppy) although I don't entirely disagree either. I know that a well-designed specialist product DOES produce a very different quality of light to other tools. For example, a beauty dish cannot be emulated by an umbrella, a softbox or anything else. But, I accept that because properly-designed ones are rare, and the badly designed ones don't work, I understand why he says this. Again, if he compared the very best, properly designed beauty dishes then I think that he would agree with me - and, as always, I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we're that far apart actually Garry. Maybe you're right, and the problem is that the comparisons I've seen were not with true parabolics that have been properly designed, properly set up and properly used.

Other folks may not be aware of Lencarta's new range of parabolic beauty dishes - 60cm, 80cm and 120cm, white or silver in a choice of fittings, and sold complete with a reversible deflector, a double diffuser softbox option, plus grid, and all in a nice looking zipped bag. Either way, they look like a very handy buy at £100 (80cm). http://www.lencarta.com/new-products/80cm-lencarta-silver-folding-beauty-dish

Be great to see some comparisons Garry (y)
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
This is pretty much where I'm at: big light = soft, small light = hard, and nobody would argue with that. What I'm not getting (at least so far) is that there is a third way, that combines a bit of both kinds of light - soft, yet with more clearly defined shadows. This is what beauty dishes and other parabolics are supposed to do, but I've yet to see a convincing demonstration that shows real and significant practical benefits. My mind is open though ;)



I'm not sure we're that far apart actually Garry. Maybe you're right, and the problem is that the comparisons I've seen were not with true parabolics that have been properly designed, properly set up and properly used.

Other folks may not be aware of Lencarta's new range of parabolic beauty dishes - 60cm, 80cm and 120cm, white or silver in a choice of fittings, and sold complete with a reversible deflector, a double diffuser softbox option, plus grid, and all in a nice looking zipped bag. Either way, they look like a very handy buy at £100 (80cm). http://www.lencarta.com/new-products/80cm-lencarta-silver-folding-beauty-dish

Be great to see some comparisons Garry (y)
Click to expand...
Comparisons - good idea, I'll do that, with what I have available.
 
mike weeks said:
My initial question was about direct mounting, is there any benefit (because that is the way most seem to be advertised) and as hard as I look I can find nothing that stands out.

Mike
Click to expand...
Some benefit with the flash mounted directly to the softbox, but the main benefit is with the flash reverse-firing, so that the correct focus point can be achieved.
 
HoppyUK said:
.... soft, yet with more clearly defined shadows. This is what beauty dishes and other parabolics are supposed to do, ....
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's easier to think of them as large "flat" light sources... they fill in most shadows due to relative size yet cast hard/crisp edged shadows. This is why they are generally used frontal.
The advantage of a true parabolic in that sense is the ability for it to maintain the same characteristic (lighting angles) irrespective of it's distance/relative size. Which allows you to control falloff w/ distance, w/o the distance affecting softness. But the effect will be very similar to any other "hard" light source from the same angle... falloff may be negated by side/back/fill/etc, particularly in a "bright fashion" type image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top