Softbox vs. Shooting Through Umbrella

Need to purchase mobile equipment for digital headshots. My inclination is to

opt for shooting through one large umbrella vs. reflecting from a white umbrella

or using a softbox. Not sure using a scrim might be equally good. Looking for

the most flattering light for the ladies. I've seen some examples posted, but I

can't discern an outright winner on my screen.

 

Starting from scratch here equipment-wise and need to start purchasing

immediately, and $ is unfortunately an issue. Your advice is much appreciated,

thanks.

The significant word here is 'mobile'. Softboxes can be a pain to assemble/dissemble, so it would probably be better for you to use umbrellas.

 

Softboxes give very similar results to shoot-through umbrellas, except that softboxes produce more controlled light because the light is limited to the chosen direction - shoot through umbrellas reflect around 40% of the light and, in a small room, the spilled light bounces off of walls, ceiling etc.

My "opinion" is that people put more emphasis on which type of light modifier to use versus the size. There is only a slight difference between shooting through the umbrella versus a soft box, but more importantly, a more flattering light would be to use a much bigger soft box. Another thing you can do is shoot through a Chimera disk (since you're trying to save money). You can buy a pretty large one for not much money.

Want to save yourself a lot of money, Dean? Then use foamcore, reflecting the main light

onto your subject as diffused light. In other words: like a 'softbox'....

 

However, if you're "looking for the most flattering light for the ladies", you will find that 1

light source is not enough. And since you said "need to purchase mobile equipment" let

me lay my solution on you:

 

my "portable studio" basically consists of 3x wireless 5600HS D flashguns on their own

tripods (2 battery sets per), triggered by the pop-up flash on my camera, a 3' and a 4'

silver/white Lastolite reflector. This provides plenty 'oomph', I can bounce and fake

'softboxes' and balance shadows, and endlessly vary combinations. And the whole schpiel

fits a medium- sized suitcase, so it's perfect for locationwork.

 

A seeming downside is that you have no modelling lights. But, hey!, this is the digital age,

so you simply do a test shot with the real light output, you chimp - on a laptop for a good

view - and adjust if neccessary!

 

I shoot live subjects with unsupported camera, because flash freezes movement anyway,

and it enables me to move around freely, direct the scene, try different angles and

viewpoints, or adjust the lighting.

 

This set also provides TWO backup flashguns for my 'primary' flashgun.

 

The combination of versatility, portability and power means that I use this setup often.

 

You could do something similar, Dean.

A light bounced into a reflector, foamcore or whatever, is not even close to have the same quality of light and light control of a softbox.

 

Even a shoot-thru umbrella would be a better choice. For that matter even a bounce umbrella would be better than bouncing light into a piece of foamcore.

 

The best choice is a properly sized softbox with a strobe with a modelling light brighter than 250 watts.

 

It's strange that some people feel that you really don't need to see the light that you are using to light a subject. Doesn't make sense.

Kind of a combination of umbrella and softbox. Goes up and comes down pretty fast. Just like an umbrella, just with a diffusion cover that goes over the front.

 

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=104540097250928&sku=PTSL547

http://www.photekusa.com/Softlighter.html

"The best choice is a properly sized softbox with a strobe with a modelling light brighter

than 250 watts."

 

Absolutely, Brooks.

It is also the most expensive choice by far! Lemme guess: about TWOHUNDRED TIMES

MORE EXPENSIVE....

 

So... "the best choice" is very debatable!

"...It's also the most expensive choice by far !.....So the "best choice" is very debatable! "

 

I know but sometimes I hope, beyond all reason, that these equipment questions really are about the quality of the light and the best possible tool for the job, not the cheapest, down and dirty solution.

 

I guess I'm just a romantic.

<i>"I know but sometimes I hope, beyond all reason, that these equipment questions really are about the quality of the light and the best possible tool for the job, not the cheapest, down and dirty solution."</i> <p>

 

Brooks is being a bit curmudgeonly. It comes from being an experienced studio photographer who appreciates that studio photography needs equipment that isn't cheap, and that the cheapest solution aren't necessarily adequate.<br>Studio photography is about lighting, and lighting is about control of light.<br>Those of us who learned our craft using film but who have since moved to digital appreciate that digital allows us more creative freedom but we also appreciate that we still need to excercise the care that we had to exercise with film. <p>Shooting without the benefit of modelling lihts is a bit like dumping the bolt-action rifle in favour of a machine gun.<p>Hit-and-miss is no substitute for using the right tools, and using them with care.

I also thnk the Softlighter might work for you, or it's more adaptible cousin the Illuminata, also by Photek. Both require alot of power. Alternates that require fewer watt seconds include the umbrella like Westcott Halo and the more softbox-ish Apollo. The Apollo is harder to point down (literally). The Halo spreads soft light over a large area. <p>Shoot through umbrellas let a lot of light bounce back into the room, making control harder and wasting watt seconds. Foamcore is even worse but large reflective panels can make interesting light in a large studio but require very powerful strobes... t

An umbrella spills a lot of light, whether you bounce the light or shoot through the umbrella. This means light goes where you don't want it and picks up off-colors on the way to your subject.

 

A softbox or umbrella must be used at a distance from the subject approximately equal to its diagonal (or diameter) to produce a soft light. You can use it further away, but the light gets harder with distance. A reasonable maximum would be twice the diagonal.

 

Photoflex softboxes aren't made quite as well as a Chimera, for example, but have one useful feature. The stays are held in place by velcro flaps. You can loose the flaps and the stays pop through, releasing most of their tension. It's easy enough to assemble a soft box, but really hard to disassemble them with full tension in place.

"The stays are held in place by velcro flaps"<p> so are the Calumet boxes. Bounce umbrellas may "spill a lot of light, but at least they spill it in a direction I can use, and not in the opposite direction (onto the ceiling). I like the edge of umbrella light, you just have to keep it off your lens. I just don't like the catchlight they make in close ups... t

Tom,

 

If you use a shoot-through umbrella, as much light gets bounced backwards as goes through the umbrella. This constitutes a real control problem.

 

Good to know about Calumet soft boxes. It sounds like you've been through that ordeal.

I'm using the Adorama Digipopper 300's for portable lights. Price is right and they work fine. I had one unit fail out of the box but they were good about replacing it.

 

I'm inclined to keep it simple- one light with umbrella and a foamcore reflector for fill. On-camera flash tilted straight up to trigger the monolight.

 

You really need backup, so I'd suggest a pair of cheap lights of the same brand and power vs one more expensive light.

 

Head shots are not complicated- you could use a piece of printer glued to a piece of foamcore and hold it at an angle over your shoe flash to get a softer effect. Use the paper to avoid the shiny surface of the foamcore.

Another option is the brolly from the Alien Bee's people- sets up like an umbrella but works more like a soft box.

Why don't you look on ebay? I purchased a 5' octabank from a company called Avonia (sp?). The octabank cost me $45.00 (new) and came with inserts to change the color from white to either silver or gold. It also came with a honeycomb grid. This system is well built and appears to me to be a complete rip off of the Photoflex system. The grid alone from photoflex is over $250. I think. At any rate, the price is roughly the same as for an umbrella and the kit stores neatly into a little bag.

Edward, you are absolutely correct about shoot through umbrellas. Worthless to me. I was speaking of bounce umbrellas when I said I like the edge of umbrella light. <p>I think it's amusing that the genuine importance of a back up system is mentioned in the same post that recommends Digi-Poppers... It is then noted that one of them broke when it fell out of the box. This seems to indicate that, if you use Digi-Poppers, you might need back ups to the back ups... t

No, my 2nd Digipopper burned out when I tested it.

 

If you were going on a job with a high end unit would you take just one? What if it failed?

 

Digipoppers are light in weight as well as cheap, and they do the job in a lot of situations.

"<i>would you take just one?</i>"<p>I don't take just one of anything to a job. That's why I agreed with you that backup is of "genuine importance". <p>Since the first Digi-Popper broke falling out of the box, and the second one burned out when tested, I guess having a backup to the backup Digi-Popper <i>is</i> a good idea. I <i>was</i> joking, but...<p>I take a backup pack and two extra heads even when using Lumedyne and/or Dynalites, two of the more dependable systems available. I also carry three cameras, because backup <i>is</i> of genuine importance.<p> I recommend Lumedyne for dependable, controllable, lightweight battery powered strobes (Signature Deluxe packs with Classic heads are my favorites). Buy used Classic packs and heads if you have to go cheap, and have them checked out and tuned up by Lumedyne... t

Only one of the cheapies has died so far.

 

I live 2 blocks from Calumet in San Francisco so when I need good stuff I rent it.