Reading mode: Light Dark

What makes beauty dishes special?

Go to last post
D

DRode

Senior Member
Messages
2,821
Reaction score
33
Location
OH, US
Please excuse my ignorance here. I'm trying to understand what makes the light from a beauty dish different than say a softbox or an umbrella. I've never used one. I would guess that the light is somewhat less diffuse, more directional and more contrasty. A grid would seem to make the light more directional.

Am I close?

--
-Dan Rode
http://rodephoto.com
 
Many photographers use a beauty dish connected to a portable battery powered flash, on a bracket, centered above the lens of the camera.

Beauty dishes usually are used with a "sock" that covers the bulb and the reflector. It is a bigger and softer light source and is used at closer proximity to the model. It gives the nice Butterfly or Hollywood light.
 
A BD without the sock has slightly more contrast than a softbox.

Use it on young women with good skin because it will show blemishes more than a softer light.

With a grid, it will scatter light less than an umbrella and gives more of a spotlight effect. Because it is not made of a translucent material, it can be more efficient.

With a sock there is little difference between a BD and a softbox with the exception of the shape of the catchlight.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
  • Jack London
 
Please give the dictionary definition of "Creamy,Lush. light".

Really these sort of descrptions are of no technical value, though they make for a nice sales pitch.

Its akin to saying the shot is too dark, instead of saying its underesposed by 1 1/2 stops.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
  • Jack London
 
You're right, comments like that have no technical value. Instead, they are informed by an understanding of photography as art. Great photographs tell a story and evoke emotion. They are crafted by skilled artisans who recognize that that formulas can't bring a photograph to life.
 
without trying to be mean, is a great example of the difference between a technician and a photographer.

Photographers like other words, too. Snap is one. Punch is another. We know what flat and bland mean, and usually don't lkike having to use those words.

We know the ish words, too. Greenish, yellowish, bluish...

And the ey words. orangey

But we hardly ever say redy. That's got to do with whether the flahs is recharged.

Nor do we say redish. Those are in a salad. It's too red, or not red enough.

We know that slow and fast have several meanings each, and we even know that the numbers we might use, if we wanted to be more specific, keep changing, depending ont he context.

A 70-200 2.8 is fast but a 50 2.8 is slow.

Use the 70-200 at 1/60th, and that's slow. Use the 50 at 1/60, and it's neither fast nor slow. But at 1/250 the 50 is fast and the 70-200 isn't.

So there you go. Our own language.

BAK
 
Too funny. Nicely done. And, as it happens, I just came across this during my bedtime reading...

"I like the light. It wraps, and it is smooth. It’s tough to articulate about light in a reasonable way. I use terms like smooth, rounded, harsh, angry, voluptuous, poppy, dreamy, soft, rich, evil…" Joe McNally, Hot Shoe Diaries
 
Was a pretty decent photographer; a fellow who had some well known commercial clients... and an amazing teacher.
Watch one of his lectures at Brooks Institute.

He speaks about specularity, edge transfer, diffuse value, 18% grey, photographic black and photographic white. I never, ever head him use terms like 'creamy'.

Yeah, I get terms like pop and punchy. They get a certain message across, but they are imprecise when explaining why one type of light is better in a certain situation.
Horses for courses I think the English say.

And for those claiming that the imprecise terms are somehow more 'inspired and artistic', lets not forget that the great painters still had to learn how to mix pigments in pretty precise ratios to get the colors that they wanted.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
  • Jack London
 
As Nadar said many years ago, at the beginning of photography,
"Everyone can learn the technique of lighting. What is very
difficult, and what you can’t teach is a feeling for the light, a
sentiment of the light."

Lighting is, above all, not a question of technique, but of the
feeling. Because, even if you think it is a simple light, it
depends on where you put the camera, where you put the subject,
what you put behind the subject or beside the subject, the angle
of the sun, if there is a cloud in front of the sun. Anybody can
use a strobe, anybody can use any light - but to capture the
sentiment of the light - that is not so easy.

http://www.paoloroversi.com/images/pdf/photodistrict.pdf

Roversi talks about light as a spiritual experience. Technical isn't the right language for spiritual. No, I don't know how to translate it into technical terms. And no, I wouldn't want to. I can only talk about how I interpret light and what I feel about it based off my experiences, so take it for what it is.

--
Ramen is how I afford my glass
http://www.blindmike.com
 
Artists and technicians aside, I think words may be inadequate to really describe the quality of light. Pictures might, however. Like a series of photos demonstrating how a doll/mannequin looks like under direct hotshoe flash, regular strobe, strobe with reflector, beauty dish, etc. A thousand words a pop, as they say =p I do agree that aesthetics requires an instinctive understanding of the output, but I do believe that this instinctive understanding also needs to be fostered by demonstrations of what to expect...through experience or instruction. I am a lighting newbie myself with little equipment, so...does anyone with the kit handy have nice demonstrations of the different sorts of lighting? Thanks in advance! :)
 
Kirika said:
demonstrations of what to expect...through experience or instruction. I am a lighting newbie myself with little equipment, so...does anyone with the kit handy have nice demonstrations of the different sorts of lighting? Thanks in advance! :)
Click to expand...
http://www.bron.ch/vt_pd_lg_sc_en/index.php
Here you may choose any light former to compare the effects.
--
cheers, Peter
Germany
 
That's an excellent resource! Thanks! In fact that's pretty much exactly what I wanted to locate. haha
 
Reasons to use a BD,

I think creates a light which circles the person's head and hair lines and neck lines and also preventing shadows where you dont want them and adding extra shine where you do want it. The way they look reflected in a persons's eyes can also be attractive.

-Steve
 
Bob Howland said:
If you can't give it an operational definition and can't measure it, then it isn't real.
Click to expand...
Agree.
--
Regards,
Baz

I am 'Looking for Henry Lee ' (could be Lea, or even Leigh) and despite going 'Hey round the corner', and looking 'behind the bush', I have not yet found him. If he survives, Henry is in his mid-60s, British, and quite intellectual.

What is it all about? Well, something relating to a conversation we had in the pub 35 years ago has come to spectacular fruition, and I'd like him to know how right he was.

If you know somebody who could be this man, please put him in touch with me. Thank you.
 
Kirika said:
That's an excellent resource! Thanks! In fact that's pretty much exactly what I wanted to locate. haha
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the comparator isn't a lot of use in this case, as none of the light modifiers demonstrated are identified as "Beauty Dishes" as such.

Even if one or other of them may be of the same general kind as, say, the spitefully expensive Mola ones, there is no way of telling which it might be, unless you happen to already know what the effect looks like...

... in which case you (errrr.....) would not need the demo[?]
--
Regards,
Baz

I am 'Looking for Henry Lee ' (could be Lea, or even Leigh) and despite going 'Hey round the corner', and looking 'behind the bush', I have not yet found him. If he survives, Henry is in his mid-60s, British, and quite intellectual.

What is it all about? Well, something relating to a conversation we had in the pub 35 years ago has come to spectacular fruition, and I'd like him to know how right he was.

If you know somebody who could be this man, please put him in touch with me. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Travis Burnside
Beauty dish basics
2
Replies
39
Views
220
Ellis Vener
Ellis Vener
A
  • Question Question
Beauty dish for Bowens mount and AD200?
Replies
14
Views
231
ronscuba
R
D
  • Question Question
Grids on octabox and disappointing uniformity of light
Replies
14
Views
45
ronscuba
R
Travis Burnside
What are your favorite cheap lighting tricks?
Replies
8
Views
121
Travis Burnside
Travis Burnside
DirkPeh
Use case for diffusors on small LED video lights
Replies
17
Views
18
Victor Engel
V

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top