soft boxes vs. umbrellas

What would be different about the light provided by the two? They both basically disperse and soften the light correct? Or maybe I am way off...

Thanks in advance,
Evan

A good light box has a uniform brightness on the front panel. An umbrella generally has hot spots and fall off. There are also some gadgets (like Westcott Halo or Apollo) which is a sort of combination of the two. In general, the more complex and expensive devices give a more uniform result.

--
Jürgen aus Boden, Schweden.

A softbox has a pretty tight lighting angle compared to a bouncer ( - umbrella). That gives you much more control and gain in output power. Even more if you apply barndoors or eggcrates (louvers).
--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
(English - not my native tongue)

In addition to the great responses you will be getting from DPR posters, I suggest that you try a google search using "softbox vs. umbrella" as your search parameters. Lots of neat hits.
--

Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate - 30 years service. Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director and Naval Aircrewman. I have done considerable comercial photography including advertising, weddings and portraiture.

3macbob3 said:

A good light box has a uniform brightness on the front panel. An
umbrella generally has hot spots and fall off.

Click to expand...

Whilst this may be true, it doesn't make much difference in the light that falls on the subject. There is no reason to have an even light distribution across the face of the modifier unless.....

1) the modifier appears reflected in the subject, say the eyes in a portrait

and....

2) UN-eveness in that refection is something you personally don't care for.

Myself, I don't think it's any big deal, one way or the other.

What softboxes do is contain the light, and direct it exclusively forwards.

Umbrellas tend to spill more light around the room, which can be helpful, by providing light from additional directions, but sometimes is not, because the quantity of bounced light is not easy to control.

Either way................

The difference in how the subject appears is very small indeed, and the choice of brolly or softbox has nothing to do with how even the light might be across your subject.

Even-ness, or lack of it, is a matter of how you use your lights and their modifiers, not which ones you use.
--
Regards,
Baz

See http://super.nova.org/DPR/Equipment/ for a description of umbrellas, softboxes and other commonly used modifiers.

I agree with Barrie that the primary difference between a white umbrella and a white SB is the control of the spill.

If your studio is huge spill probably will not be a problem, but its very difficult to control where the light is going in a smaller space when using an umbrella without a black outer cover it refected mode, or shooting through a white one. Softboxes provide better directional control, something particulary important when shooting on dark low-key backgrounds.

There's a difference in the qualities of the light between white and silver umbrellas. Silver will create more specular reflections than white and have a slightly cooler color temp. It also makes a difference whether the silver is shiny mylar or matte fabric.

CG

I can't say I'm a fan of shiny reflectors on people, and I've gone so far as to use fine sandpaper to knock the shine down.

I'm thinking about the 60" photek softlighter. I'm aware of the donut hole effect. Can anyone compare them to a SB of similar size as far as light quality?

Another difference which rarely gets mentioned is that you can position and aim a softbox from different angles than you can an umbrella. It's relatively awkward, for instance, to mount an umbrella and light on a boom and suspend it directly overhead, but that's not a problem with a softbox. I've used my softboxes from front, top, bottom, sides and behind various subjects.

In general, I find myself choosing an umbrella where portability, quick setup or wide light dispersion is needed. Otherwise, I prefer a softbox.

Lately, I've been shooting a lot with a 24-inch "beauty dish" reflector, with a diffusion sock on it. It's like using a softbox, but is more compact and sets up faster.

--
Jim

no text

Barrie Davis said:

3macbob3 said:

A good light box has a uniform brightness on the front panel. An
umbrella generally has hot spots and fall off.

Click to expand...

Whilst this may be true, it doesn't make much difference in the
light that falls on the subject. There is no reason to have an even
light distribution across the face of the modifier unless.....

1) the modifier appears reflected in the subject, say the eyes in a
portrait

Click to expand...

Which also means you have to like square/rectangular catchlights in people's eyes (in the case of light boxes). Seems to be currently "in fashion"...didn't used to be. Photographers used to go to some expense buying stuff like Broncolor Opal-light (think that was the product) reflectors to get round catchlights. The Westcott Halo will give you octagonal catchlights.

Barrie Davis said:

and....

2) UN-eveness in that refection is something you personally don't
care for.

Myself, I don't think it's any big deal, one way or the other.

What softboxes do is contain the light, and direct it exclusively
forwards.

Umbrellas tend to spill more light around the room, which can be
helpful, by providing light from additional directions, but
sometimes is not, because the quantity of bounced light is not easy
to control.

Either way................

The difference in how the subject appears is very small indeed, and
the choice of brolly or softbox has nothing to do with how even the
light might be across your subject.

Even-ness, or lack of it, is a matter of how you use your lights
and their modifiers, not which ones you use.
--
Regards,
Baz

Click to expand...

I've never seen a window produce a catchlight in someone's eyes...maybe if there was a nuclear blast next door...but I think I'd stop shooting at that point. I also expect the catchlight to follow the round curvature of the eye so round looks more natural to me (IMHO). If I wanted a rectangular catchlight, I think it'd look best if it looked like one of those multi-pane windows rather than a cheap slider. YMMV.

irish-george said:

Which also means you have to like square/rectangular catchlights in
people's eyes (in the case of light boxes). Seems to be currently
"in fashion"...didn't used to be. Photographers used to go to some
expense buying stuff like Broncolor Opal-light (think that was the
product) reflectors to get round catchlights. The Westcott Halo
will give you octagonal catchlights.

Click to expand...

You can have a softbox and pleasing looking circular catchlight by simply adding a circle mask to the front of the softbox. Photoflex supplies circle masks with their MultiDome Q39 series. Strip masks, louvers and egg-crate grids are also available.

CG

I don't think there is a "right" shape for a catchlight. A rectangular window will produce a somewhat rectangular catchlight (bent somewhat by the shape of the eye). If the window is very close, the catchlight might not even seem to be there, but at a decent distance, the rectangular shape is perfectly visible.

Is having a circular catchlight any more "right" than that?

You can go all the way back to Vermeer and other painters who used the camera obscura in their work and see rectangular catchlights in some portraits. In Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl Earring," you can see the squarish window shape quite clearly in her eyes (although Vermeer went for a soft focus look in that painting, likely because his camera obscura's lens wasn't so sharp).

The only shapes which bother me as catchlights are those which are obviously the result of umbrellas, ringlights or other lighting devices you would not see in normal life.
--
Jim

Jim Salvas said:

I don't think there is a "right" shape for a catchlight.

Click to expand...

Who said there was a "right" shape?

Jim Salvas said:

A rectangular window will produce a somewhat rectangular catchlight
(bent somewhat by the shape of the eye). If the window is very
close, the catchlight might not even seem to be there, but at a
decent distance, the rectangular shape is perfectly visible.

Click to expand...

All well and good if you are trying to simulate the look of someone standing near a window. If you aren't then the window-like reflection may appear to be out of context with the setting.

Jim Salvas said:

Is having a circular catchlight any more "right" than that?

Click to expand...

There are no rules or absolutes like "right" or "wrong". The poster I responded to implied that if a rectangular SB was used one was forced to accept rectangular catchlights. I pointed out that if the look of round catchlights is preferred they can be achieved with a softbox by using a circle mask. The explaination of how to do it was not intended to imply round was right or better.

Jim Salvas said:

You can go all the way back to Vermeer and other painters who used
the camera obscura in their work and see rectangular catchlights in
some portraits. In Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl Earring," you can
see the squarish window shape quite clearly in her eyes (although
Vermeer went for a soft focus look in that painting, likely because
his camera obscura's lens wasn't so sharp).

Click to expand...

Well if memory serves its also obvious she is sitting near a window in that painting. If she were depicted in the middle of a field outdoors or in the middle of an artificially illuminated room at night the square catchlights would be out of context, no?

Jim Salvas said:

The only shapes which bother me as catchlights are those which are
obviously the result of umbrellas, ringlights or other lighting
devices you would not see in normal life.

Click to expand...

I agree that the catchlights, regardless of size, shape or number shouldn't be a noticable distraction, unless done intentionally. Granted those might be out of place for a conventional portrait, but aren't such artificial catchlight reflections "normal" in the life of a fashion model and therefore appropriate to the context of a fashion shoot?

CG

--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
(English - not my native tongue)

irish-george said:

I've never seen a window produce a catchlight in someone's
eyes...maybe if there was a nuclear blast next door...

Click to expand...

Uh, window lighting is one of the best and easiest ways to get catchlights in the eyes. It can also produce some beautiful lighting. All of the following are with only window lighting. No nuclear blast next door either...
--
-gilbert
http://www.gilbertmabel.com

'You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.' -Mark Twain

Chuck Gardner said:

Chuck Gardner said:

Which also means you have to like square/rectangular catchlights in
people's eyes (in the case of light boxes). Seems to be currently
"in fashion"...didn't used to be. Photographers used to go to some
expense buying stuff like Broncolor Opal-light (think that was the
product) reflectors to get round catchlights. The Westcott Halo
will give you octagonal catchlights.

Click to expand...

You can have a softbox and pleasing looking circular catchlight by
simply adding a circle mask to the front of the softbox. Photoflex
supplies circle masks with their MultiDome Q39 series. Strip
masks, louvers and egg-crate grids are also available.

CG

Click to expand...

I didn't know that...I'll have to check out Photoflex Multidomes. Maybe I can trim down my stuff a little.

George

What delightful shots those are! Good for the spirit. Thanks for posting.
--
Regards,
Baz

--
-gilbert
http://www.gilbertmabel.com

'You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.' -Mark Twain