Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
- Original Message - From: "Frantisek" Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:47 AM Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? WR> Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the Hm Bill, how do you make a ribless umbrella ?!? discombobulated frantisek asks Poor choice of words. There are umbrellas out there that have the fabric sewn to the inside of the ribs. Use that type of umbrella, and a white flash head (why don't more companies make them in white?), and you have to look pretty hard at the catchlights to see the equipment. William Robb
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
WR> Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the Hm Bill, how do you make a ribless umbrella ?!? discombobulated frantisek asks Good light! fra
RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
Thanks Tom, very helpful. I saw some foam-core poster board in a store the other day and was wondering if it might work. Eventually I'd like some bigger/better lights but for now 'cheap' is the word of the day. ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:03 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > Interestingly I saw several of the answers before your post came up, Don. > > The real answer is that depends. It depends on what you are > trying to do, and > how much light you have available. > > Taking the second first as it is simpler to answer, softboxes use > up quite a bit > of light. So with your small strobes they would not be the best > thing to use > unless you are only interested in small product photography with > the lights up > close. > > On the first, what you are trying to do, I prefer umbrellas for > portraiture, and > softboxes for most anything else (sometimes I like hard light > rather than soft > though). For portraiture 2 medium power umbrella lights and two > lower power > snooted lights work well for traditional lighting (or two large > floods and and a > couple of baby spots if you use continuous lighting). That give > you Key, Fill, > background, and hair or back lights. > > For other stuff you can wind up using everything you can get your > hands on. It > seems however that most location photographers use minimal > lighting these days. > Just two lights with softboxes. Serious film crews use a truck > load of lights. > > So based upon the above I would recommend you get a couple of > higher power > strobes (something like those Alien Bees that Tom Van Veen uses) > that you can > use with boxes for location work, or with the existing lower > power ones for > studio. For portraiture you can put the umbrellas on the high > power strobs and > fabricate snoots or barndoors for the current ones. That would > give you maximum > versitility for the least money. > > However if you are mainly doing small product shots you can just > consider a > couple of small softboxes for your existing strobes. Or, you may > want to think > of getting a light tent instead of softboxes. > > BTW: if they do not need to be portable softboxes can be fabricated from > foamcore and duct tape real easily. > > Hope this is helpful. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > I'm trying to come up with the best way to complete > > a small studio lighting setup. > > I have 2 120WS strobes with 32" umbrellas and stands. > > I also have 2 extra stands. > > I'd like to get 2 more AC slave strobes of about the same power. > > I can't decide whether to go with 2 more umbrellas and holders or > > get 2 24-32" soft boxes. > > My umbrellas can be used as bounce or "shoot thru". > > When used as shoot thru sometimes the ribs cause a shadow > > problem. > > > > What do you all think of umbrellas vs softboxes as far as ease of > > setup/use and effectiveness/versatility. > > Main uses would be: portrait, product and still life. > > > > TIA > > Don > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005 >
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
Interestingly I saw several of the answers before your post came up, Don. The real answer is that depends. It depends on what you are trying to do, and how much light you have available. Taking the second first as it is simpler to answer, softboxes use up quite a bit of light. So with your small strobes they would not be the best thing to use unless you are only interested in small product photography with the lights up close. On the first, what you are trying to do, I prefer umbrellas for portraiture, and softboxes for most anything else (sometimes I like hard light rather than soft though). For portraiture 2 medium power umbrella lights and two lower power snooted lights work well for traditional lighting (or two large floods and and a couple of baby spots if you use continuous lighting). That give you Key, Fill, background, and hair or back lights. For other stuff you can wind up using everything you can get your hands on. It seems however that most location photographers use minimal lighting these days. Just two lights with softboxes. Serious film crews use a truck load of lights. So based upon the above I would recommend you get a couple of higher power strobes (something like those Alien Bees that Tom Van Veen uses) that you can use with boxes for location work, or with the existing lower power ones for studio. For portraiture you can put the umbrellas on the high power strobs and fabricate snoots or barndoors for the current ones. That would give you maximum versitility for the least money. However if you are mainly doing small product shots you can just consider a couple of small softboxes for your existing strobes. Or, you may want to think of getting a light tent instead of softboxes. BTW: if they do not need to be portable softboxes can be fabricated from foamcore and duct tape real easily. Hope this is helpful. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Don Sanderson wrote: I'm trying to come up with the best way to complete a small studio lighting setup. I have 2 120WS strobes with 32" umbrellas and stands. I also have 2 extra stands. I'd like to get 2 more AC slave strobes of about the same power. I can't decide whether to go with 2 more umbrellas and holders or get 2 24-32" soft boxes. My umbrellas can be used as bounce or "shoot thru". When used as shoot thru sometimes the ribs cause a shadow problem. What do you all think of umbrellas vs softboxes as far as ease of setup/use and effectiveness/versatility. Main uses would be: portrait, product and still life. TIA Don -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005
RE: [personal] RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
My softbox (Photoflex 24"x36") folds up and stores neatly into a carrying bag that came with the softbox - too bad the speed ring can't fold up though :D So basically the softbox is a bit longer than, yep, you guessed it, an umbrella. Cheers Dave > -Original Message- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:52 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: [personal] RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > Thanks for the examples Jens. > (All very nice shots BTW) > And thanks everyone for your comments. > > I like the effect with the soft-boxes, but it is > hard to judge because of the difference in media, > subject, etc. > I think I like the more directional, but still > soft light of the boxes. > I have on ocassion put dark cloth over the umbrellas > (sort of a 'barndoor' effect.) to get a bit more > direction to the light. > Seems it would be very easy to mask a large box if > one felt it was a bit too soft. > > One more question, how hard is it to transport a > soft-box? > Umbrellas are of course very easy. > > Don > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:50 PM > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > > > > Softboxes: > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side1.html > > Umbrellas: > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side21.html > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side20.html > > > > All the best > > Jens > > > > > > > > ...I use the umbrella like this most of the time: > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side17.html > > > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 12. januar 2005 00:29 > > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Emne: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Brendan" > > Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > > > > > William was it not you who said softboxes were better > > > since you could control the direction of the light > > > better nad have less spill? > > > > Absolutely, they excell at that, and the quality of the light can be > > very good. > > I have, however, come to prefer reflected light from an umbrella. > > I suspect it has something to do with the umbrella being a 3 > > dimensional light source, as opposed to the flat lighting from a soft > > box. > > Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the > > reflector isn't as obvious in the catchlights. > > Somewhere around the house, I have both a 60" umbrella and a 60" > > Moonlight softbox. I've never done a direct comparison. > > I should do that at some point. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
Thanks for the examples Jens. (All very nice shots BTW) And thanks everyone for your comments. I like the effect with the soft-boxes, but it is hard to judge because of the difference in media, subject, etc. I think I like the more directional, but still soft light of the boxes. I have on ocassion put dark cloth over the umbrellas (sort of a 'barndoor' effect.) to get a bit more direction to the light. Seems it would be very easy to mask a large box if one felt it was a bit too soft. One more question, how hard is it to transport a soft-box? Umbrellas are of course very easy. Don > -Original Message- > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:50 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > Softboxes: > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side1.html > Umbrellas: > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side21.html > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side20.html > > All the best > Jens > > > > ...I use the umbrella like this most of the time: > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side17.html > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 12. januar 2005 00:29 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Brendan" > Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > > William was it not you who said softboxes were better > > since you could control the direction of the light > > better nad have less spill? > > Absolutely, they excell at that, and the quality of the light can be > very good. > I have, however, come to prefer reflected light from an umbrella. > I suspect it has something to do with the umbrella being a 3 > dimensional light source, as opposed to the flat lighting from a soft > box. > Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the > reflector isn't as obvious in the catchlights. > Somewhere around the house, I have both a 60" umbrella and a 60" > Moonlight softbox. I've never done a direct comparison. > I should do that at some point. > > William Robb > > > >
SV: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
Modifiers...? The softboxes (two) are appr. 80x80cm. The umbrellas (two) are of normal size 60-70cm. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. januar 2005 00:57 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > Softboxes: > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side1.html > Umbrellas: > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side21.html > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side20.html How big are each of the modifiers? William Robb
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? Softboxes: http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side1.html Umbrellas: http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side21.html http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side20.html How big are each of the modifiers? William Robb
RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
Softboxes: http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side1.html Umbrellas: http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side21.html http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side20.html All the best Jens ...I use the umbrella like this most of the time: http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side17.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. januar 2005 00:29 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? - Original Message - From: "Brendan" Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > William was it not you who said softboxes were better > since you could control the direction of the light > better nad have less spill? Absolutely, they excell at that, and the quality of the light can be very good. I have, however, come to prefer reflected light from an umbrella. I suspect it has something to do with the umbrella being a 3 dimensional light source, as opposed to the flat lighting from a soft box. Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the reflector isn't as obvious in the catchlights. Somewhere around the house, I have both a 60" umbrella and a 60" Moonlight softbox. I've never done a direct comparison. I should do that at some point. William Robb
RE: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
...I use the umbrella like this most of the time: http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side17.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. januar 2005 00:29 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? - Original Message - From: "Brendan" Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > William was it not you who said softboxes were better > since you could control the direction of the light > better nad have less spill? Absolutely, they excell at that, and the quality of the light can be very good. I have, however, come to prefer reflected light from an umbrella. I suspect it has something to do with the umbrella being a 3 dimensional light source, as opposed to the flat lighting from a soft box. Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the reflector isn't as obvious in the catchlights. Somewhere around the house, I have both a 60" umbrella and a 60" Moonlight softbox. I've never done a direct comparison. I should do that at some point. William Robb
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
- Original Message - From: "Brendan" Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? William was it not you who said softboxes were better since you could control the direction of the light better nad have less spill? Absolutely, they excell at that, and the quality of the light can be very good. I have, however, come to prefer reflected light from an umbrella. I suspect it has something to do with the umbrella being a 3 dimensional light source, as opposed to the flat lighting from a soft box. Ribless umbrellas are nicer still, since the structure of the reflector isn't as obvious in the catchlights. Somewhere around the house, I have both a 60" umbrella and a 60" Moonlight softbox. I've never done a direct comparison. I should do that at some point. William Robb
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
I personally prefer softboxes for control on individuals or couples and even up to 3 or 4 folks but larger groups (5 or more) I think a couple umbrellas would do the trick better since there is more spill from an umbrella than a softbox. That being said, 120W/S strobes may not be powerful enough to put into a softbox. Again, this would depend on the proximity of the softbox/light to the subject and ISO setting. YMMV Cheers Dave Original Message: - From: Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:33:45 -0500 (EST) To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? William was it not you who said softboxes were better since you could control the direction of the light better nad have less spill? --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jens Bladt" > Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > > Depends on what you want. Umbrellas give you > slightly "sharper" > > looking > > images - harder light - than soft boxes. > > My experience in the studio is exactly the opposite. > Softboxes hit > the subject with a "wall of light", which is very > harsh. > Umbrellas, by their nature, wrap the subject in much > softer light. > > > > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
William was it not you who said softboxes were better since you could control the direction of the light better nad have less spill? --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jens Bladt" > Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > > > > Depends on what you want. Umbrellas give you > slightly "sharper" > > looking > > images - harder light - than soft boxes. > > My experience in the studio is exactly the opposite. > Softboxes hit > the subject with a "wall of light", which is very > harsh. > Umbrellas, by their nature, wrap the subject in much > softer light. > > > > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? Depends on what you want. Umbrellas give you slightly "sharper" looking images - harder light - than soft boxes. My experience in the studio is exactly the opposite. Softboxes hit the subject with a "wall of light", which is very harsh. Umbrellas, by their nature, wrap the subject in much softer light.
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
Depends on what you want. Umbrellas give you slightly "sharper" looking images - harder light - than soft boxes. Umbrellas are slightly easier to work with, not so bulky, but you must pay more attention to (unwanted) high lights/reflexes when using an umbrella. Turning a softbox to an angle can be a PITA (heavy and uncomftable rotating axis), while the umbrella rotates/positiones easily. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. januar 2005 00:48 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? - Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? > I'm trying to come up with the best way to complete > a small studio lighting setup. > I have 2 120WS strobes with 32" umbrellas and stands. > I also have 2 extra stands. > I'd like to get 2 more AC slave strobes of about the same power. > I can't decide whether to go with 2 more umbrellas and holders or > get 2 24-32" soft boxes. > My umbrellas can be used as bounce or "shoot thru". > When used as shoot thru sometimes the ribs cause a shadow > problem. > > What do you all think of umbrellas vs softboxes as far as ease of > setup/use and effectiveness/versatility. > Main uses would be: portrait, product and still life. > Umbrella: http://pug.komkon.org/02jun/virginia.html Soft Box: http://pug.komkon.org/03may/rayna1.html And let me tell you, I am still embarrassed by that picture. I fought with softboxes for about 10 years before I finally gave up on them. William Robb
Re: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better? I'm trying to come up with the best way to complete a small studio lighting setup. I have 2 120WS strobes with 32" umbrellas and stands. I also have 2 extra stands. I'd like to get 2 more AC slave strobes of about the same power. I can't decide whether to go with 2 more umbrellas and holders or get 2 24-32" soft boxes. My umbrellas can be used as bounce or "shoot thru". When used as shoot thru sometimes the ribs cause a shadow problem. What do you all think of umbrellas vs softboxes as far as ease of setup/use and effectiveness/versatility. Main uses would be: portrait, product and still life. Umbrella: http://pug.komkon.org/02jun/virginia.html Soft Box: http://pug.komkon.org/03may/rayna1.html And let me tell you, I am still embarrassed by that picture. I fought with softboxes for about 10 years before I finally gave up on them. William Robb
Sot Box or Umbrella, which is better?
I'm trying to come up with the best way to complete a small studio lighting setup. I have 2 120WS strobes with 32" umbrellas and stands. I also have 2 extra stands. I'd like to get 2 more AC slave strobes of about the same power. I can't decide whether to go with 2 more umbrellas and holders or get 2 24-32" soft boxes. My umbrellas can be used as bounce or "shoot thru". When used as shoot thru sometimes the ribs cause a shadow problem. What do you all think of umbrellas vs softboxes as far as ease of setup/use and effectiveness/versatility. Main uses would be: portrait, product and still life. TIA Don
