5ft Shoot Thru Umbrella V.S. 5ft Octobox

[d_g5]

I just gotta know... Besides light fall-off why do people feel that an octobox

is just plain better than a shoot thru umbrella?

-

-

-

The two are just different to me. One allows more fall off (umbrella) the other

doesnt. One can be used in reflective or shoot thru position for softer light

(umbrella) the other (octa) can not. One allows more light quality adjustments

(umbrella) the other (octa) can not.

-

-

-

One costs $30.00 (60 inch Umbrella) the other over $400.00 (47 inch octabox)!

Besides the only octobox worth 2 cents being the $79 fotodiox (ebay seller) why

would one want an octobox that costs so much. Dont get me too wrong I dont hate

the octa, I just am ignorant of why its sworn by by so many photographers.

[alec_myers]

One difference I can think of is that shooting through an umbrella you immediately lose half the light bouncing off the back and illuminating the the walls and ceiling and adding general fill to your subject that you may not want.

[Matt Laur]

What Alec said. When you use a shoot-through (especially when you don't have a black removable cover for it) in reflective mode, you're throwing light all OVER the place. That light will pick up the color of the surfaces from which it reflects, and it will rob you of a lot of control over what gets lit, and what does not (and from which angle). Now... is that problem worth over $300 to solve? Only you know the circumstances in which you're using it. Personally, I'm glad to have some convertable umbrellas, and to have a large softbox. You can't have enough light modifiers, and I'm realizing I'm only seeing the tip of the issue so far. But at the very least, if you're buying umbrellas, get the convertable variety (like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FWestcott-Optical-White-Umbrella-Removable%2Fdp%2FB00009UTZJ%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1179259019%26sr%3D8-3&tag=uplandlife-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_blank"><b>this one by Westcott</b></a>) so that you have some more control over things.

[ronald_moravec1]

I get my best portrait light by shooting thru a Calumet 4x6 foot diffuser. The basic fabric is shoot thru, but there are others.

 

A second with white opague fabric becomes a shadow fill reflector.

 

This is the best lighting set up I ever made and the most simple. If you want sharp hard light, use small reflectors far away and no diffuser.

[john_murphy1]

I use the Elinchrom OctaBank (Beauty Light) because the results are better. I've given up

on trying to figure what the difference is, I just know that people say, "Wow" when they see

their portrait taken under the Beauty Light. They don't say that for umbrellas or regular

softboxes.<br />

An additional advantage of the massive softbox is that one you've got it setup, it's a lot

easier to use. Unlike a beauty dish, where you have to position the light very carefully to

achieve the best results, the Beauty Light requires that the subject be close to it-it does

the rest for you! <br />

Obviously, I would like to have a cheaper solution (photography is only a hobby for me),

but is seems like a waste of everyone's time if I take lousy pictures.

[d_g5]

I use the convertible 60 inch westcott so light spill isnt soo bad. I also have made some pvc stands that I hang black light absorbing fabric and will place on either side of the umbrella that really really kill the spill.

 

I also bring my subjects very close to my light source. When I set umbrella in shoot thru I dial down the power of my strobes all the way down to 1/4 output (Britek 440 watt HS-2000 storbes). Can anyone post a photograph that cannot be done with an umbrella of equal size?

[garry edwards]

I wouldn't say that any one tool is any 'better' than any other.

 

For the reasons already given, shoot through umbrellas can produce very uncontrolled lighting, unless you have a high, black ceiling, neutral floor and distant walls, but sometimes the bounced light can be useful. Shoot through umbrellas can be placed close to the subject and so are capable of producing soft lighting.

 

Reflective umbrellas produce much more controlled, directional lighting but the light can't be soft because it can't be positioned close to the subject.

 

If you have a permanent studio then a softbox can be very useful, but far less useful if it isn't permanent because they can be a pain to put together when you need them. The main advantage of a softbox is that it combines the qualities of both shoot through and reflective umbrellas, i.e. it can produce soft light but the light is controlled. Also, the inner baffle and sometimes the outer diffuser an be removed if required, which makes it a pretty versatile tool. A softbox can also produce low overall contrast and high local contrast in the same shot, as in the example below.

 

Then there are silks, scrims and reflectors - all of which can produce soft lighting and which have their own advantages/disadvantages.

 

And of course, at the other end of the scale, you have all the modifiers that are designed to produce controlled lighting.

 

Generally, I find that the people who have convinced themselves that one particular tool is 'best' have very little understanding of lighting.<div></div>

[d_g5]

G Edwards... your the man! Thanks!

[john_murphy1]

Garry,<br/>

I assume that when you question the maturing of people who are convinced that there is

one

best lighting tool you are referring to those that believe that there is only one "best"

lighting

tool that should be used by everyone, and that all others are inferior. I assume you are

not

referring to the tendency of photographers to find a favorite formula that works for them

and to

use it extensively in their work.<br/>

Certainly, <a href="http://www.greenfield-sanders.com/portraits/">Timothy Greenfield-

Sanders</a>, and <a href="http://www.williamcoupon.com/"/>William Coupon</a>

would

be examples of photographers who have a single lighting setup from which they rarely

deviate.

[d_g5]

Now, I have to admit... I cried when I saw Mr. Coupons work. That is phenominal! Every piece was an art piece. Thats the softness and light quality I wouldnt mind doing on families. Thats commanding the big bucks and ultra respects! I love it. But I dont thing I'd use the exact same technique each and every time. But I love it. Mr Sanders' work seems okay even though he is a very high caliber phiotographic artist.

[garry edwards]

John,

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I meant people who believe that, for example, a softbox is 'better' than an umbrella.

 

A lot of commercially-successful photographers adopt or create a style of their own and tend to work within that style but this doesn't indicate a preference for certain tools, only a preference for the tools that help them to achieve a certain look.

 

I used to know a guy who strongly and honestly believed that his car was the best family car ever made; I'm not sure how he arrived at that conclusion, the fact of the matter is that he learned to drive with it, passed his test in it and had never driven anything else!

[igord]

Octa has no hot spot, light is very even. Contrast depends on fabric used and depth of

octa. I honestly love elinchrom octa.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5973582