Softboxes and shadows

[Ronnie99]

Hi everyone,

I'd really like to recreate the look that Daniel Norton gets in this session. I really love those shadows.

He uses a Profoto 2x3' softbox. Would it be possible to achieve similar results will my Godox Ad200 and a similar sized soft box? Or would you recommend getting a Profoto box? To be honest it's a little out of my budget.



I have tried this with an 32" umbrella (https://www.walimex-webshop.com/en/walimex-pro-umbrella-softbox-reflector-91cm.html)

with a diffusion panel and didn't really get close. I tried to follow his example by feathering the light.

I realize he is also using a Hasselblad and a Profoto B1x

Sorry about the links, I'm writing this on my phone.

Thanks for the help

 

[Ellis Vener]

Hi everyone,

I'd really like to recreate the look that Daniel Norton gets in this session. I really love those shadows.

He uses a Profoto 2x3' softbox. Would it be possible to achieve similar results will my Godox Ad200 and a similar sized soft box?

Yes

Or would you recommend getting a Profoto box?

No.

To be honest it's a little out of my budget.



I have tried this with an 32" umbrella (https://www.walimex-webshop.com/en/walimex-pro-umbrella-softbox-reflector-91cm.html)

with a diffusion panel and didn't really get close. I tried to follow his example by feathering the light.

I realize he is also using a Hasselblad and a Profoto B1x

irrelevant to the quality of the light. Size of the light, and placement of the light (proximity and angle to the line between subject and camera) are critical, as are the use and placement of any bounce panels (white or black, black to kill light, white to reflect it).

Sorry about the links, I'm writing this on my phone.

Thanks for the help

--
Ellis Vener
A working photographer since 1984.
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 

[tugwilson]

Hi everyone,

I'd really like to recreate the look that Daniel Norton gets in this session. I really love those shadows.

He uses a Profoto 2x3' softbox. Would it be possible to achieve similar results will my Godox Ad200 and a similar sized soft box? Or would you recommend getting a Profoto box? To be honest it's a little out of my budget.



I have tried this with an 32" umbrella (https://www.walimex-webshop.com/en/walimex-pro-umbrella-softbox-reflector-91cm.html)

with a diffusion panel and didn't really get close. I tried to follow his example by feathering the light.

I realize he is also using a Hasselblad and a Profoto B1x

Sorry about the links, I'm writing this on my phone.

Thanks for the help

I don't think the Profoto softbox is doing anything special here so a similar sized softbox from anybody will do as well.

When you feather a rectangular softbox the subject sees a long and narrow rectangular light source. If you try that with an umbrella the subject sees an oval light source. So you would expect to get a different effect for each.

 

[Ronnie99]

Thanks. I'll try and get a 2x3 box and I'll try and post the results.

 

[Ronnie99]

Great - I'll get a similar sized box and I'll try it out

Thanks

 

[tcphoto1]

Daniel doesn't hide anything in his videos, he shoots with Nikon Mirrorless and Capture One not Hasselblad in his videos. I'd suggest working with what you have or rent a little gear to experiment with until you can afford your own.

 

[Ronnie99]

The video says he is using a Hasselblad. Either way, I'm going to buy a 2x3 softbox. Looking at brands, there's a pretty big difference from prices of brands like Westcott, Profoto, (150 Euros or more) and Phottix, Godox or similar brands. I've also heard good things about Chimera. Living in Europe, I have only found a shop in Amsterdam that carries a few of their boxes.

Does anyone have any preferences as far as brands go?

Thank you

 

[Ellis Vener]

The video says he is using a Hasselblad. Either way, I'm going to buy a 2x3 softbox. Looking at brands, there's a pretty big difference from prices of brands like Westcott, Profoto, (150 Euros or more) and Phottix, Godox or similar brands. I've also heard good things about Chimera. Living in Europe, I have only found a shop in Amsterdam that carries a few of their boxes.

Does anyone have any preferences as far as brands go?

Thank you

Chimera and (now harder to find and more expensive) Plume Wafers, https://www.plumeltd.com

 

[tugwilson]

The video says he is using a Hasselblad. Either way, I'm going to buy a 2x3 softbox. Looking at brands, there's a pretty big difference from prices of brands like Westcott, Profoto, (150 Euros or more) and Phottix, Godox or similar brands. I've also heard good things about Chimera. Living in Europe, I have only found a shop in Amsterdam that carries a few of their boxes.

Godox's rectangular softboxes are quite old designs and I think you can do better than that are a reasonable price. I've been quite impressed by the build quality of the Phottis Raja line then their 60X90cm box would give you the aspect ration you're after.

 

[tugwilson]

The video says he is using a Hasselblad. Either way, I'm going to buy a 2x3 softbox. Looking at brands, there's a pretty big difference from prices of brands like Westcott, Profoto, (150 Euros or more) and Phottix, Godox or similar brands. I've also heard good things about Chimera. Living in Europe, I have only found a shop in Amsterdam that carries a few of their boxes.

Does anyone have any preferences as far as brands go?

Thank you

Chimera and (now harder to find and more expensive) Plume Wafers, https://www.plumeltd.com

I've bought some second had Bowens Wafers on eBay and they are virtually unused. I understand that there was a relationship between Plume and Bowens at some point.

 

[Ronnie99]

The video says he is using a Hasselblad. Either way, I'm going to buy a 2x3 softbox. Looking at brands, there's a pretty big difference from prices of brands like Westcott, Profoto, (150 Euros or more) and Phottix, Godox or similar brands. I've also heard good things about Chimera. Living in Europe, I have only found a shop in Amsterdam that carries a few of their boxes.

Godox's rectangular softboxes are quite old designs and I think you can do better than that are a reasonable price. I've been quite impressed by the build quality of the Phottis Raja line then their 60X90cm box would give you the aspect ration you're after.

Thanks, I'll probably go with Phottix. I like the Raja line but these are a bit more economical.

Loading…

www.adorama.com

Not sure what the difference would be.

 

[Rico Tudor]

... with a diffusion panel and didn't really get close. I tried to follow his example by feathering the light.

Post your finished image and a BTS snap so we can review the issue. As usual, brand is immaterial: setup and shooting environment will determine the results. Daniel Norton has a simple lighting scheme which is all good. Feathering is an overused buzzword, not some magical technique. Umbrella plus diffuser generates a broad light spray and doesn't respond to feathering. SB does respond because the light is far more directional. Note that feathering directs light away from the subject and is a waste of photons unless you bounce it back to the subject. I don't see any bounce activity by Norton in that posted BTS, hence the deep shadows.

To summarize, you can get the same deep shadows with your umbrella+diffuser by shooting in a large or dark space, even outdoors at night. Alternatively, learn to use subtractive methods like black dropcloth or cutters around the subject.

--
Canon, Nikon, Contax RTS, Leica M, Sony, Profoto

 

[Ellis Vener]

The video says he is using a Hasselblad. Either way, I'm going to buy a 2x3 softbox. Looking at brands, there's a pretty big difference from prices of brands like Westcott, Profoto, (150 Euros or more) and Phottix, Godox or similar brands. I've also heard good things about Chimera. Living in Europe, I have only found a shop in Amsterdam that carries a few of their boxes.

Does anyone have any preferences as far as brands go?

Thank you

Chimera and (now harder to find and more expensive) Plume Wafers, https://www.plumeltd.com

I've bought some second had Bowens Wafers on eBay and they are virtually unused. I understand that there was a relationship between Plume and Bowens at some point.

Bowens was the source for the covering of the Plume wafers. That is according to Gary Regester.

Gary started Plume Ltd., after leaving Chimera Lighting. He and Tom Frost were the co-founders of Chimera and he designed both the original Chimera light banks and the Wafers. Tom came from the tent manufacturing business. Gary is (or was) a pretty good portrait photographer in his own right.



While Wafers are still available new, mostly I see them on the see market. The big photographic advantage of the Wafer design was they were much shallower -making them better for location work - but could be set up for anything near perfect center to edge/corner light fall off (great for product and full length portraits), or for a brighter center (great for headshots.

 

[Ronnie99]

... with a diffusion panel and didn't really get close. I tried to follow his example by feathering the light.

Post your finished image and a BTS snap so we can review the issue. As usual, brand is immaterial: setup and shooting environment will determine the results. Daniel Norton has a simple lighting scheme which is all good. Feathering is an overused buzzword, not some magical technique. Umbrella plus diffuser generates a broad light spray and doesn't respond to feathering. SB does respond because the light is far more directional. Note that feathering directs light away from the subject and is a waste of photons unless you bounce it back to the subject. I don't see any bounce activity by Norton in that posted BTS, hence the deep shadows.

To summarize, you can get the same deep shadows with your umbrella+diffuser by shooting in a large or dark space, even outdoors at night. Alternatively, learn to use subtractive methods like black dropcloth or cutters around the subject.

Here's the image. It's just me testing lights. Not the best head position or expression. I used one light, no fill Monochrome profile in Lightroom, no post production. I have an octobox that I will try out today or tomorrow and hopefully if it goes well that may save me from buying another piece of kit.

Sorry I don't have a BTS snap but I will for the next attempt. I do remember though, now looking at Daniel's position of his light, that mine may not have been angled down enough

 

[ronscuba]

Lighting is not exactly the same but it looks similar to me. Similar enough that some adjustments in position or in editing might make the difference. What are the big differences you see ?

 

[Ronnie99]

Lighting is not exactly the same but it looks similar to me. Similar enough that some adjustments in position or in editing might make the difference. What are the big differences you see ?

--
https://www.ronchauphoto.com/
https://www.instagram.com/rchau.photo

One of the main differences for me is how in Daniel's images it looks clean. I really like how nice his highlights are and there are no shadows interfering in his highlights. I also like the smooth transition from highlights to shadows. In my image there are shadows around both eyes, and it doesn't feel clean to me. If I add a reflector I run the risk of getting rid of the shadows I like.

Thanks for your help

 

[tugwilson]

Godox's rectangular softboxes are quite old designs and I think you can do better than that are a reasonable price. I've been quite impressed by the build quality of the Phottis Raja line then their 60X90cm box would give you the aspect ration you're after.

Thanks, I'll probably go with Phottix. I like the Raja line but these are a bit more economical.

https://www.adorama.com/ph82495.html

Not sure what the difference would be.

That one is really designed to be used with speedligths. The Raja has a Bowens mount.

 

[Ronnie99]

Godox's rectangular softboxes are quite old designs and I think you can do better than that are a reasonable price. I've been quite impressed by the build quality of the Phottis Raja line then their 60X90cm box would give you the aspect ration you're after.

Thanks, I'll probably go with Phottix. I like the Raja line but these are a bit more economical.

https://www.adorama.com/ph82495.html

Not sure what the difference would be.

That one is really designed to be used with speedligths. The Raja has a Bowens mount.

Thanks. I'll definitely go with the Raja

 

[ronscuba]

Lighting is not exactly the same but it looks similar to me. Similar enough that some adjustments in position or in editing might make the difference. What are the big differences you see ?

One of the main differences for me is how in Daniel's images it looks clean. I really like how nice his highlights are and there are no shadows interfering in his highlights. I also like the smooth transition from highlights to shadows. In my image there are shadows around both eyes, and it doesn't feel clean to me. If I add a reflector I run the risk of getting rid of the shadows I like.

Thanks for your help

If you zoom in on the catchlights, you can see your modifier position is slightly different. His catchlight goes from 9:00 to 12:00. Yours is 10:00 to 12:00. Suggesting the bottom position of his modifier is lower than yours. His catchlights are bigger, suggesting his light position is closer than yours.

Looking at the modifier position shown in the video. The bottom of his modifier is at her shoulder level and very close to her face. Roughly 12-20 inches just out of frame, positioned at the side, slightly in front of her.

--
https://www.ronchauphoto.com/
https://www.instagram.com/rchau.photo

 

[Rico Tudor]

I do remember though, now looking at Daniel's position of his light, that mine may not have been angled down enough

Possible, although too high means losing the catch light. To better repro Daniel's image, bring the light much closer: even to the point of looming over you. That will soften the light, reducing skin textures. In post, move the white point to bring up the highlights: compressing or slightly burning out those highlights with a curve is fine.