Your thoughts please

GR3Z

GR3Z

Suspended / Banned
Messages
706
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
Considering on buying a softbox for family portraiture, I've already have shoot through brollies, but my questions is in what situation would you use a a brolly when you have a softbox, all the research Ive done points towards using softboxes all of the time

Thoughts
 
This article in the Lencarta Learning Centre should answer most of your questions, you'll see that there is a detailed explanation of what each of the main light shaping tools does, with example photos.

But, to answer your specific question...
Shoot through umbrellas can produce soft lighting but they spread light everywhere.
Reflective umbrellas produce less light spill but they can't produce such soft lighting, because the flash head is between the softbox and the subject, limiting how close it can be placed.
A softbox really combines the benefits of both - it doesn't spill light and it can be placed close to the subject.

But sometimes a shoot through umbrella is the best tool. I tend to use them as on axis fill lights (a fill light at the camera position, where the light acts as a true fill, reaching every part of the subject seen by the camera). In this situation, a shoot through umbrella works simply because light from it spreads everywhere, creating a soft fill.
 
Garry Edwards said:
This article in the Lencarta Learning Centre should answer most of your questions, you'll see that there is a detailed explanation of what each of the main light shaping tools does, with example photos.

But, to answer your specific question...
Shoot through umbrellas can produce soft lighting but they spread light everywhere.
Reflective umbrellas produce less light spill but they can't produce such soft lighting, because the flash head is between the softbox and the subject, limiting how close it can be placed.
A softbox really combines the benefits of both - it doesn't spill light and it can be placed close to the subject.

But sometimes a shoot through umbrella is the best tool. I tend to use them as on axis fill lights (a fill light at the camera position, where the light acts as a true fill, reaching every part of the subject seen by the camera). In this situation, a shoot through umbrella works simply because light from it spreads everywhere, creating a soft fill.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary a very interesting read

mininut said:
get yourself one of these...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/strobe-reflective-flash-Umbrella-softbox-light-42-109cm-/150531617019?pt=UK_Photography_StudioEquipment_RL&hash=item230c6230fb

at less than 1/3 the price of a soft box it's a no brainer, and you'll be more than happy with the results, very light and portable too. Softlighters have the best of both IMHO.
M.
Click to expand...

I would but I'm using hot shoe flashes with wireless triggers i was steering to one of these, although do you think it will work ok with a Speedlite


http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/290607010...286.c0.m270.l1313&_fvi=1&_rdc=1#ht_1184wt_922
 
Last edited:
The reversed umbrella type softbox linked to by [user]mininut[/user] works well, even with a speedlight. However, their biggest drawback is the fact they can not be extremely close to your subject, as you can with a standard softbox, to get the softest light possible. (shaft and light are between subject and panel, dictating minimum distance).
 
I generally don't use shoot through umbrellas at all. Was trying to think of a time when I did, but can't. Reflective umbrellas, yes, shoot through, no.
 
Michael Sewell said:
The reversed umbrella type softbox linked to by [user]mininut[/user] works well, even with a speedlight. However, their biggest drawback is the fact they can not be extremely close to your subject, as you can with a standard softbox, to get the softest light possible. (shaft and light are between subject and panel, dictating minimum distance).
Click to expand...

You could, of course, get the shoot-through version, which is essentially just a 42" umbrella with a backing on it...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You could, of course, get the shoot-through version, which is essentially just a 42" umbrella with a backing on it...
Click to expand...
Very true, but without the light control offered by the brolly box thing, as the light is scattered everywhere.

It's all a matter of perspective. Knowing what you are going to shoot and how you want to light it. Grahams suggestion may actually be ideal for what want, or it may be of no use to you if you wish greater control of the light.

Of course, it would be best to be equipped for all eventualities, but deep pockets would be required.
 
All on here so far have been in favour of softbox because of added control, and I am fully aware and agree to an extent, but for the benefit of the OP (nothing to do with the fact I'm rather bored), I will play the devil's advocate here, and fight for the brolly corner!!! :)

Shoot through brollies are cheap, easy to transport and position close to subject. Catchlights are also round, as opposed to (most) softboxes which are square/rectangular. I find round catchlights to be more pleasing.

When you turn up at a client's house for a portrait sitting, do you want to make your client wait for 10 min while you set up your softboxes, or spend 30 seconds putting 2 brollies up, and get shooting?

Yes, it does spread light everywhere, so if you work in a small space, and or you want to creat a low key, selectivly lit portrait, then the spill will be difficult to control. However, if your primary aim is to create well, evenly illuminated family portraits, then a white shoot through brolly will do a very fine job at that.

As for the brolly box thing, just the same as a reflective, you can't place it as closely to the subject as you can with a shoot through. So with the same dimension, the relative size of the light will be smaller (hence harder) than a shoot through. And while I have no experience, I'd imagine as they have no front recess, the directional control is hardly greater than that of a shoot through brolly.

Control is a great thing, but in terms of convenience, you just can't beat a good ol' brollie. So there's a couple of reasons for using them in place of softbox.

Counter arguments welcome :)
 
Michael Sewell said:
Very true, but without the light control offered by the brolly box thing, as the light is scattered everywhere.
Click to expand...

Well, yes the only saving grace of the shoot-through version of the brolly box is that you don't lose a chunk of your light out the back, the way you do with a normal shoot-through umbrella.
 
hairboy said:
All on here so far have been in favour of softbox because of added control, and I am fully aware and agree to an extent, but for the benefit of the OP (nothing to do with the fact I'm rather bored), I will play the devil's advocate here, and fight for the brolly corner!!! :)

Shoot through brollies are cheap, easy to transport and position close to subject. Catchlights are also round, as opposed to (most) softboxes which are square/rectangular. I find round catchlights to be more pleasing.

When you turn up at a client's house for a portrait sitting, do you want to make your client wait for 10 min while you set up your softboxes, or spend 30 seconds putting 2 brollies up, and get shooting?

Yes, it does spread light everywhere, so if you work in a small space, and or you want to creat a low key, selectivly lit portrait, then the spill will be difficult to control. However, if your primary aim is to create well, evenly illuminated family portraits, then a white shoot through brolly will do a very fine job at that.

As for the brolly box thing, just the same as a reflective, you can't place it as closely to the subject as you can with a shoot through. So with the same dimension, the relative size of the light will be smaller (hence harder) than a shoot through. And while I have no experience, I'd imagine as they have no front recess, the directional control is hardly greater than that of a shoot through brolly.

Control is a great thing, but in terms of convenience, you just can't beat a good ol' brollie. So there's a couple of reasons for using them in place of softbox.

Counter arguments welcome :)
Click to expand...
A good argument - but...

The shoot through brollies lose about 40% of their power out of the back, where it can cause lens flare and also bounce around everywhere, destroying all lighting control, they are also only very slightly faster to set up than a good folding softbox.

The one thing I agree with though is that they're cheap.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Well, yes the only saving grace of the shoot-through version of the brolly box is that you don't lose a chunk of your light out the back, the way you do with a normal shoot-through umbrella.
Click to expand...

certainly agree there. Possibly the one good reason to buy over an ordinary shoot through brolly.
 
Garry Edwards said:
A good argument - but...

The shoot through brollies lose about 40% of their power out of the back, where it can cause lens flare and also bounce around everywhere, destroying all lighting control, they are also only very slightly faster to set up than a good folding softbox.

The one thing I agree with though is that they're cheap.
Click to expand...

Good point about lens flares, but that's only when you position in a wrong spot, and not use a lens hood. I've not had any major flare issues in the past, unless a number of all bad criterias have been met at the same time.

Ah, a folding softbox - that wasn't in the option at the beginning, I don't think :) Yes, they are much, much quicker to set up, and do make a good compromise, but they cost a fair bit more than a softbox of the size dimension. I am rather partial to my 110cm folding deep octa though.

As for losing 40% of power at the back, well, OK, no argument there... or is there :) Softboxes suck up a good 1-2 stops of light with 2 diffusers, so if you are shooting on 500ws head at half power (250ws), you could be losing roughly 125-180ws because of the softbox. That's immediately more than 50%, and as much as 75%! So how's that?

He he, I'm feeling argumentative today :)
 
hairboy said:
Good point about lens flares, but that's only when you position in a wrong spot, and not use a lens hood.
Click to expand...
Wrong spot? The position isn't carved in stone, but the main quality of a shoot through is that it can be placed very close to the subject, to produce soft lighting - which means that it's usually between the camera and the subject - and it will almost always cause flare there.

As for losing 40% of power at the back, well, OK, no argument there... or is there :) Softboxes suck up a good 1-2 stops of light with 2 diffusers, so if you are shooting on 500ws head at half power (250ws), you could be losing roughly 125-180ws because of the softbox. That's immediately more than 50%, and as much as 75%! So how's that?
Click to expand...
Nope...
Softboxes don't actually suck up any light (they're not a black hole), all that they do is to distribute light where it isn't wanted as well as where it is wanted, so people assume that the light is lost when it's really just being spread around (but not as badly as an umbrella:))
Also, softboxes have efficient reflective sides that actually make the most of the light - umbrellas don't...

He he, I'm feeling argumentative today :)
Click to expand...
Me too:)
 
Michael Sewell said:
The reversed umbrella type softbox linked to by [user]mininut[/user] works well, even with a speedlight. However, their biggest drawback is the fact they can not be extremely close to your subject, as you can with a standard softbox, to get the softest light possible. (shaft and light are between subject and panel, dictating minimum distance).
Click to expand...

Unless you modify them. I chop the shaft down and fit a dowel so they open normally, but I can remove the shaft when in use. A simple mod that makes a huge difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top