Umbrella or Softbox for group shot?

[CatchingUp]

If you had to choose one over the other, which is going to give me the best coverage...a 24x60 softbox turned horizontaly or a 42" umbrella . (Both are AB800's

I'm shooting a group shot of graduates, about 65 of them. They will be sitting in bleachers stacked up about 6-8 rows. I know using two lights would be ideal, but time/space constraints allow me to only use one of the two lights.

[DaveG]

I would NOT use a light modifier in that situation. I think that you are looking for a softer light and that's what a softbox or umbrella normally does. But neither will do this under these conditions.

What makes a light soft is its size and proximity to the subject. Size alone doesn't always do this. The biggest light source there is - the sun - is a point light source because it's so far away. The softbox/umbrella WILL create a soft light if your subjects were a few meters away, but they will be a lot farther away than that. If you do use softboxes or umbrellas what in effect you've done is to make THEM point sources, but much weaker ones.

I did a shot like this a few weeks ago and I turned my AB1600's around and aimed them both at the subjects. I had one on each side of me about three meters from the camera. At that point I was about 12-15 meters from the group. I had both lights on camera stands and they were as high as I could get them. I wanted to get at least f11 out of this and I did so.

By the way what you don't want to do is to move the lights in closer. The inverse square law comes into effect then. (Yeah I know ISQL is always there, but if you don't notice any effect that's all moot.) With the lights ten meters away you will have even light from the front row to the last, with maybe a little fall off. If you were closer there would be a much greater exposure difference between the first and the last row.

The other technique I like to use is to stand on a ladder, or a big table if I can. That gives me a shooting position where I have to tilt the camera slightly forward. That changes the plane of depth of field to more closely match the angle of the subject's heads from the first row to the last. The effect is that any selected aperture will have a greater depth of field, at least as far as the subject's heads are concerned. You also get the benefit of making the subject's lift their chins, which is as simple a double chin remover as there is!

[suyenfung]

the umbrella if those are your choices. the softbox is a definite no go! i wouldn't use either.

my personal first choice would be bouncing off of the ceiling if possible. here is an example of a group shot using ceiling bounce only (http://67.228.11.142/images/uploads/08.05.03_14.47.32.jpg). raise your iso to get the aperture you want. that is if you are not balancing with ambient, then it gets a little tricky.

and dave gave you some great tips!

[Jim M]

I'd use both lights and no modifiers. I think time would work out about equal to one light with a modifier or even favor the two light, no modifier plan. Sixty-five people is quite a group. To get them all in focus you will want plenty of depth of field and with that many people, you will probably want the lights far enough back that you aren't getting light fall-off from front to back. I think you'll need all the light power you can muster, especially in a big room like a gymnasium.

Edit: If you shoot from a ladder, make sure the lights are at least as high as the camera or, preferably, higher. If lights are lower than the subject it looks strange and produces shadows above them.

[MetalRain]

id do what everyone else said, get a 5 foot stepladder and put them on 10 foot stands

[dawnrogers]

the umberella will spread the light more......

[tim]

For 65 people you want as much power as you can get. Both strobes, no diffusers, directly over the camera. If you put them to the sides you'll get shadows on peoples faces in the further back rows, trust me it's a lot of work to fix that in photoshop - I made the mistake a few years back.

[bieber]

the umberella will spread the light more......
...so will just removing the reflector, and that won't eat up nearly as much light. Why would you use an umbrella for something it's not meant for, when you could do it more efficiently without it?

DaveG, wonderful words of wisdom. The whole angled-camera/plane-of-focus connection never really occured to me before, thanks a bunch for pointing that out :)

[jr_senator]

my personal first choice would be bouncing off of the ceiling if possible. here is an example of a group shot using ceiling bounce only (http://67.228.11.142/images/uploads/08.05.03_14.47.32.jpg).

This method (bounce only) begats dark eyes (raccoon eyes).

[bieber]

This method (bounce only) begats dark eyes (raccoon eyes).
True. But if you have enough power to use the roof as a massive reflector, and you can use some direct fill to take care of the eyes, too, it should be preferable to all direct light.

[CatchingUp]

Bouncing off the ceiling is out. Much too high.

...so will just removing the reflector, and that won't eat up nearly as much light. Why would you use an umbrella for something it's not meant for, when you could do it more efficiently without it?

Are you implying that I just use the direct light of the strobe unit...no umbrella at all?

I figured the umbrella would at least help spread the light out more evenly. ?

[tim]

Yes, the suggestion was not using a diffuser of any kind. Try it out - set things up with the same layout you will for the group shot. The lights will be a few meters from the subject, and make sure you have people (or something) in the middle and at both ends of where the group will be. Take the photo with an umbrella, and with no diffuser. You'll probably find to get enough DOF you'll need bare bulb - ie just the reflector on the strobe.

[bieber]

Bouncing off the ceiling is out. Much too high.

...so will just removing the reflector, and that won't eat up nearly as much light. Why would you use an umbrella for something it's not meant for, when you could do it more efficiently without it?

Are you implying that I just use the direct light of the strobe unit...no umbrella at all?

I figured the umbrella would at least help spread the light out more evenly. ?

It won't. The only thing an umbrella does is make a larger light source, which won't really matter, because it takes a huge light source to soft light a group that big.

[jr_senator]

True. But if you have enough power to use the roof as a massive reflector, and you can use some direct fill to take care of the eyes, too, it should be preferable to all direct light.

Certainly, and that I why I am fond of my Lumiquest 80/20 which does such a good job here. I was replying to "...using ceiling bounce only".