How are you using your Glow deep parabolic?

Started Nov 19, 2019 | Discussions
threw the lens
threw the lens Senior Member • Posts: 2,760
Re: How are you using your Glow deep parabolic?

elliotn wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

elliotn wrote:

Sailor Blue wrote:

This butterfly light position produces a disk of light with the slightly darker center area (umbra) covering the subject's face and a halo of slightly brighter light (penumbra) surrounding the subject's face. This gives the subject a soft glowing angelic look.

It's been a while since I used a beauty dish, but I never saw the effects you describe. Please post an example.

A hard metal modifier with "steps" and a deflector that lets some light come through will create highlights and darker areas. Position and size of the modifier will affect what parts of the subject get highlights and which parts will be darker.

For example, maybe you want a models cheek bones highlighted.

Some modifiers have multiple steps, some 1 step, some no steps.

Thanks, that's interesting.

But could such a modifier really create the effect described (a shaded face surrounded by a halo)? I'd love to see an example.

I've always regarded a beauty dish as nothing more than a hard-ish soft light. The idea that a few feet out, it has a central dark zone, surrounded by a bright zone, seems somewhat implausible to me. If anyone has a beauty dish and a light meter, I'd be happy to be corrected.

Wouldn't you have to get extremely close to achieve that?

Maybe it's an old-fashioned way of using large beauty dishes up close. I'm seeing a lot of remarkably small beauty dishes offered for sale, i.e. 40cm. Good luck seeing the effect with that.

ronscuba Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: A basic test...

threw the lens wrote:

Do you have any photos looking into the softbox when you're just using the "beauty dish reflector" in it? I'm curious to see what the radial pattern is like.

No, but in my testing, you can see it in the catchlight.

A smooth pattern with a dark center and the part I really disliked is seeing the spokes of the collapsible softbox.   Picture a bicycle wheel and spokes catchlight.

I compare my modifiers to each other.  They need to be different from one another to be useful.  Forgetting about what they are called, parabolic, beauty dish, umbrella, softbox, etc..

A modifier that produces a light that is not totally smooth.  A modifier that has subtle highlights and falloffs to accentuate a particular feature of a subject.  That modifier is my Speedotron 22" hard metal with multi-steps and translucent deflector.  I think of it as  a specialty modifier.   I only use it for beauty headshots with young models with great skin.  I have never used a Mola.  This appears similar in design,  but is much less expensive.

ronscuba Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: A basic test...

A test if you have a modifier with a deflector plate:

Play around with positioning.  Modifier within arms length to the subject.

- deflector centered on the subjects face

- deflector off center so the subject can see slightly past the deflector

Comparing the 2, you should see a highlight in the 2nd option that is not there in the 1st option.

Ellis Vener
MOD Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 13,914
Re: A basic test...

ronscuba wrote:

A test if you have a modifier with a deflector plate:

Play around with positioning. Modifier within arms length to the subject.

- deflector centered on the subjects face

- deflector off center so the subject can see slightly past the deflector

Comparing the 2, you should see a highlight in the 2nd option that is not there in the 1st option.

Somehow I have difficulty imaging Horst, Steichen, Beaton, Penn, Avedon, Newman, Halsmann, Kirkland, Leibovitz, Heisler, Snowden, Bailey, Knight, Von Waggenheim, Mapplethorpe, Cook, Hiro, Parks, Gorman, Streiber, Watson, Metzner, Winters, Scholler, Seliger, Richardson (both father and son),  or any other portrait photographer worthy of any of us paying attention to worrying about the size of tiny shadow in the middle of a reflexive highlight reflection on a portrait subject’s eyeball (AKA “catch light”) in a full length or even a head and shoulders portrait, even one reproduced at life size or larger.
What is important in a portrait  is how the overall quality of the light contributes to a viewer’s emotional and intellectual “reading” of the subject. In that context, what’s going on in the catchlight might make a difference if you are making a portrait where the person’s face absolutely fills to the edges an 8.5x11-inch reproduction, but I have my doubts about that too.

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
To see my work please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on instagram @therealellisv

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 +1 more
ronscuba Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: A basic test...

Ellis Vener wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

A test if you have a modifier with a deflector plate:

Play around with positioning. Modifier within arms length to the subject.

- deflector centered on the subjects face

- deflector off center so the subject can see slightly past the deflector

Comparing the 2, you should see a highlight in the 2nd option that is not there in the 1st option.

Somehow I have difficulty imaging Horst, Steichen, Beaton, Penn, Avedon, Newman, Halsmann, Kirkland, Leibovitz, Heisler, Snowden, Bailey, Knight, Von Waggenheim, Mapplethorpe, Cook, Hiro, Parks, Gorman, Streiber, Watson, Metzner, Winters, Scholler, Seliger, Richardson (both father and son), or any other portrait photographer worthy of any of us paying attention to worrying about the size of tiny shadow in the middle of a reflexive highlight reflection on a portrait subject’s eyeball (AKA “catch light”) in a full length or even a head and shoulders portrait, even one reproduced at life size or larger.
What is important in a portrait is how the overall quality of the light contributes to a viewer’s emotional and intellectual “reading” of the subject. In that context, what’s going on in the catchlight might make a difference if you are making a portrait where the person’s face absolutely fills to the edges an 8.5x11-inch reproduction, but I have my doubts about that too.

People were asking about BD deflectors, umbra, penumbra, halo's. I chimed in with my experiences with highlights, shadows and catchlights. Obviously I am not a big famous photographer and if people chose to not pay attention to me, no biggie.

I explained my experiences and how people could experiment and see what I see. How important it is or not is up to the individual. But, I think the experiment I suggested does help in understanding how the deflector plate and multi-step BD can affect highlights and shadows.

Headshots and beauty shots do often take up almost the full frame.  How important is the catchlight in this application ?  Is there universal consensus that it does not make a difference ?

threw the lens
threw the lens Senior Member • Posts: 2,760
Re: A basic test...

ronscuba wrote:

Ellis Vener wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

A test if you have a modifier with a deflector plate:

Play around with positioning. Modifier within arms length to the subject.

- deflector centered on the subjects face

- deflector off center so the subject can see slightly past the deflector

Comparing the 2, you should see a highlight in the 2nd option that is not there in the 1st option.

Somehow I have difficulty imaging Horst, Steichen, Beaton, Penn, Avedon, Newman, Halsmann, Kirkland, Leibovitz, Heisler, Snowden, Bailey, Knight, Von Waggenheim, Mapplethorpe, Cook, Hiro, Parks, Gorman, Streiber, Watson, Metzner, Winters, Scholler, Seliger, Richardson (both father and son), or any other portrait photographer worthy of any of us paying attention to worrying about the size of tiny shadow in the middle of a reflexive highlight reflection on a portrait subject’s eyeball (AKA “catch light”) in a full length or even a head and shoulders portrait, even one reproduced at life size or larger.
What is important in a portrait is how the overall quality of the light contributes to a viewer’s emotional and intellectual “reading” of the subject. In that context, what’s going on in the catchlight might make a difference if you are making a portrait where the person’s face absolutely fills to the edges an 8.5x11-inch reproduction, but I have my doubts about that too.

People were asking about BD deflectors, umbra, penumbra, halo's. I chimed in with my experiences with highlights, shadows and catchlights. Obviously I am not a big famous photographer and if people chose to not pay attention to me, no biggie.

I explained my experiences and how people could experiment and see what I see. How important it is or not is up to the individual. But, I think the experiment I suggested does help in understanding how the deflector plate and multi-step BD can affect highlights and shadows.

Headshots and beauty shots do often take up almost the full frame. How important is the catchlight in this application ? Is there universal consensus that it does not make a difference ?

You showed photos of the beauty dish you are obsessed with and you also intervened between me and OP, where it's not clear if you are referencing the parabolic softbox we were discussing. The thread was about a parabolic softbox with a reflector plate.

Do you highly recommend this $200 clone of a $1000 Mola Setti

stepped beauty dish?

ronscuba Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: A basic test...

threw the lens wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

Ellis Vener wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

A test if you have a modifier with a deflector plate:

Play around with positioning. Modifier within arms length to the subject.

- deflector centered on the subjects face

- deflector off center so the subject can see slightly past the deflector

Comparing the 2, you should see a highlight in the 2nd option that is not there in the 1st option.

Somehow I have difficulty imaging Horst, Steichen, Beaton, Penn, Avedon, Newman, Halsmann, Kirkland, Leibovitz, Heisler, Snowden, Bailey, Knight, Von Waggenheim, Mapplethorpe, Cook, Hiro, Parks, Gorman, Streiber, Watson, Metzner, Winters, Scholler, Seliger, Richardson (both father and son), or any other portrait photographer worthy of any of us paying attention to worrying about the size of tiny shadow in the middle of a reflexive highlight reflection on a portrait subject’s eyeball (AKA “catch light”) in a full length or even a head and shoulders portrait, even one reproduced at life size or larger.
What is important in a portrait is how the overall quality of the light contributes to a viewer’s emotional and intellectual “reading” of the subject. In that context, what’s going on in the catchlight might make a difference if you are making a portrait where the person’s face absolutely fills to the edges an 8.5x11-inch reproduction, but I have my doubts about that too.

People were asking about BD deflectors, umbra, penumbra, halo's. I chimed in with my experiences with highlights, shadows and catchlights. Obviously I am not a big famous photographer and if people chose to not pay attention to me, no biggie.

I explained my experiences and how people could experiment and see what I see. How important it is or not is up to the individual. But, I think the experiment I suggested does help in understanding how the deflector plate and multi-step BD can affect highlights and shadows.

Headshots and beauty shots do often take up almost the full frame. How important is the catchlight in this application ? Is there universal consensus that it does not make a difference ?

You showed photos of the beauty dish you are obsessed with and you also intervened between me and OP, where it's not clear if you are referencing the parabolic softbox we were discussing. The thread was about a parabolic softbox with a reflector plate.

Do you highly recommend this $200 clone of a $1000 Mola Setti

stepped beauty dish?

Sorry if I intervened in a conversation between you and the op.

I believe someone else brought up beauty dishes because the softbox came with a deflector plate, which supposedly makes the softbox behave like a BD.  I was explaining how my softbox with deflector plate is different than my dedicated hard metal BD.

Yes, I like my Speedotron. Do I highly recommend it ? It is my recommendation if you want a BD less than $200.

Ellis Vener
MOD Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 13,914
Re: A basic test...

threw the lens wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

Ellis Vener wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

A test if you have a modifier with a deflector plate:

Play around with positioning. Modifier within arms length to the subject.

- deflector centered on the subjects face

- deflector off center so the subject can see slightly past the deflector

Comparing the 2, you should see a highlight in the 2nd option that is not there in the 1st option.

Somehow I have difficulty imaging Horst, Steichen, Beaton, Penn, Avedon, Newman, Halsmann, Kirkland, Leibovitz, Heisler, Snowden, Bailey, Knight, Von Waggenheim, Mapplethorpe, Cook, Hiro, Parks, Gorman, Streiber, Watson, Metzner, Winters, Scholler, Seliger, Richardson (both father and son), or any other portrait photographer worthy of any of us paying attention to worrying about the size of tiny shadow in the middle of a reflexive highlight reflection on a portrait subject’s eyeball (AKA “catch light”) in a full length or even a head and shoulders portrait, even one reproduced at life size or larger.
What is important in a portrait is how the overall quality of the light contributes to a viewer’s emotional and intellectual “reading” of the subject. In that context, what’s going on in the catchlight might make a difference if you are making a portrait where the person’s face absolutely fills to the edges an 8.5x11-inch reproduction, but I have my doubts about that too.

People were asking about BD deflectors, umbra, penumbra, halo's. I chimed in with my experiences with highlights, shadows and catchlights. Obviously I am not a big famous photographer and if people chose to not pay attention to me, no biggie.

I explained my experiences and how people could experiment and see what I see. How important it is or not is up to the individual. But, I think the experiment I suggested does help in understanding how the deflector plate and multi-step BD can affect highlights and shadows.

Headshots and beauty shots do often take up almost the full frame. How important is the catchlight in this application ? Is there universal consensus that it does not make a difference ?

You showed photos of the beauty dish you are obsessed with and you also intervened between me and OP, where it's not clear if you are referencing the parabolic softbox we were discussing. The thread was about a parabolic softbox with a reflector plate.

Do you highly recommend this $200 clone of a $1000 Mola Setti

stepped beauty dish?

A couple of years back I had a telephone interview  of the inventor of the Mola beauty dishes and reflectors. He is a fashion photographer. I won’t recount all of the details but do want to point out that the Speedotron Blackline beauty dish is indeed a “ripoff” Of the basic White interior 22” Mola Demi, not of the much larger (28” diameter) Setti

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
To see my work please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on instagram @therealellisv

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 +1 more
Nixon Glenn Contributing Member • Posts: 587
Re: How are you using your Glow deep parabolic?

Sailor Blue wrote:

Nixon Glenn wrote:

Sailor Blue wrote:

. This gives the subject a soft glowing angelic look.

Angelic look? Any examples?

Sorry, but I don't have any I have taken available. About 10 years ago I got back into portrait and glamour photography after many years of only doing family and occasionally landscape photos. I bought lights and diffusers but never a beauty dish. It wasn't worth the cost to me.

Can you show other photographer's photos with this "angelic" look?

"Angelic" is a strong word, and if it's true that word will be so popular by now, just like "butterfly" lighting. Yet I never heard that word, and never saw any photos where the photographer said about angelic looks.

Just very curious to know what is that angelic look looks

threw the lens
threw the lens Senior Member • Posts: 2,760
Re: How are you using your Glow deep parabolic?
1

Nixon Glenn wrote:

Sailor Blue wrote:

Nixon Glenn wrote:

Sailor Blue wrote:

. This gives the subject a soft glowing angelic look.

Angelic look? Any examples?

Sorry, but I don't have any I have taken available. About 10 years ago I got back into portrait and glamour photography after many years of only doing family and occasionally landscape photos. I bought lights and diffusers but never a beauty dish. It wasn't worth the cost to me.

Can you show other photographer's photos with this "angelic" look?

"Angelic" is a strong word, and if it's true that word will be so popular by now, just like "butterfly" lighting. Yet I never heard that word, and never saw any photos where the photographer said about angelic looks.

Just very curious to know what is that angelic look looks

Sailor has been cut'n'pasting that material for so long he may have forgotten where it came from. He said somewhere that he doesn't have one so you're better off googling it at this point.

Ellis Vener
MOD Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 13,914
I take back something I wrote yesterday,
1

Ellis Vener wrote:

threw the lens wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

Ellis Vener wrote:

ronscuba wrote:

A test if you have a modifier with a deflector plate:

Play around with positioning. Modifier within arms length to the subject.

- deflector centered on the subjects face

- deflector off center so the subject can see slightly past the deflector

Comparing the 2, you should see a highlight in the 2nd option that is not there in the 1st option.

Somehow I have difficulty imaging Horst, Steichen, Beaton, Penn, Avedon, Newman, Halsmann, Kirkland, Leibovitz, Heisler, Snowden, Bailey, Knight, Von Waggenheim, Mapplethorpe, Cook, Hiro, Parks, Gorman, Streiber, Watson, Metzner, Winters, Scholler, Seliger, Richardson (both father and son), or any other portrait photographer worthy of any of us paying attention to worrying about the size of tiny shadow in the middle of a reflexive highlight reflection on a portrait subject’s eyeball (AKA “catch light”) in a full length or even a head and shoulders portrait, even one reproduced at life size or larger.
What is important in a portrait is how the overall quality of the light contributes to a viewer’s emotional and intellectual “reading” of the subject. In that context, what’s going on in the catchlight might make a difference if you are making a portrait where the person’s face absolutely fills to the edges an 8.5x11-inch reproduction, but I have my doubts about that too.

I was wrong.

This morning I did tests with the Adorama Glow EZ Lock Deep Parabolic 28-inch and the Chimera Lighting Octa 2 Beauty Dish using the Flashpoint Zoom Li-on X R2 TTL On-Camera Round Flash Speedlight For Nikon (Godox V1) as a light source. I will write more about this later with examples but for right now it is important to know I set up the modifiers in a range of configurations of the deflector, internal baffle, and diffuser. 
To make a long story short, not only does how you set up the light affect the overall light quality but the shape and quality of the "catchlight" in the subject's eye makes a definite difference in the portrait.

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
To see my work please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @therealellisv

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 +1 more
JimResnikoff
JimResnikoff Contributing Member • Posts: 800
Re: I take back something I wrote yesterday,

Looking forward to your results Ellis

 JimResnikoff's gear list:JimResnikoff's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Phase One Capture One Pro +2 more
Ellis Vener
MOD Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 13,914
Umbras, penumbras, and fall off patterns... but no angelic halos

JimResnikoff wrote:

Looking forward to your results Ellis

You want Umbria’s? I’ve got Umbria’s for you.

you want penumbras? I’ve got those too.

you want “slightly darker center area (umbra) covering the subject's face and a halo of slightly brighter light (penumbra) surrounding the subject's face. This gives the subject a soft glowing angelic look”?

Well...no. That kind of special effect was non-existent in my tests. I am pretty sure you will need a free standing net or solid dot (a dot is a circular flag on a slender rod) placed out between the beauty dish and the subject to cast a slightly darker shadow on the person’s face.

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
To see my work please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on instagram @therealellisv

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 +1 more
JimResnikoff
JimResnikoff Contributing Member • Posts: 800
Re: Umbras, penumbras, and fall off patterns... but no angelic halos

It would be cool to see a side by side of the speedotron vs the mola ..

 JimResnikoff's gear list:JimResnikoff's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Phase One Capture One Pro +2 more
Ellis Vener
MOD Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 13,914
Re: Umbras, penumbras, and fall off patterns... but no angelic halos

JimResnikoff wrote:

It would be cool to see a side by side of the speedotron vs the mola ..

You might be able to rent both.

bit I think would be more interesting is a comparison between a Mola Demi and a more generic flat base + deflector Beauty Dish like the ones made by o r sold by Paul C. Buff, Profoto, etc.

As I recall the major physical differences between the Mola-lighting.com Demi and the Speedotron copy ard that the Speedo has a fixed translucent deflector and with the Mola uses a removable perforated did. Also the Speedo is only available with awhite interior while the Mola can be purchased with either a white or brushed silver interior.

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
To see my work please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on instagram @therealellisv

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 +1 more
Nixon Glenn Contributing Member • Posts: 587
Re: How are you using your Glow deep parabolic?

I can not find anything about angelic looks. That's why I ask his help to show me what is angelic looks like.

threw the lens wrote:

Nixon Glenn wrote:

Sailor Blue wrote:

Nixon Glenn wrote:

Sailor Blue wrote:

. This gives the subject a soft glowing angelic look.

Angelic look? Any examples?

Sorry, but I don't have any I have taken available. About 10 years ago I got back into portrait and glamour photography after many years of only doing family and occasionally landscape photos. I bought lights and diffusers but never a beauty dish. It wasn't worth the cost to me.

Can you show other photographer's photos with this "angelic" look?

"Angelic" is a strong word, and if it's true that word will be so popular by now, just like "butterfly" lighting. Yet I never heard that word, and never saw any photos where the photographer said about angelic looks.

Just very curious to know what is that angelic look looks

Sailor has been cut'n'pasting that material for so long he may have forgotten where it came from. He said somewhere that he doesn't have one so you're better off googling it at this point.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads