are small softboxes on flashes worthless?

I'm not talking about larger softboxes, but the small ones like this that many people velcrow to the flash. Do they really provide softer light?

It seems to me like it will just reduce the flash power, not soften the light, but I really have never used one.

I thought about getting something like this

I would love to see a review of many of these products to see which actually work and which are crap.

The only way to achieve softer light is to make the apparent light source larger. Those tiny "soft boxes" are not going to do much other than put money from gullible photographers into the inventors pocket.

They can soften the light if used in close to the subject. Used farther away, the light will get harder, but you will get feathering on the edge. And yes, it's far more limiting than a larger softbox would be in terms of softness.

This is me run'n'gun at Comic-Con, snatching a quick shot in a crowded hallway of Karen Berger and Mike Carlin. I used a small 8" softbox (a cheap ripoff of the Lastolite Ezybox Speedlite I found on eBay), holding the speedlight in my left hand. I was probably shooting from about 4-5 feet away. Not super-soft, but certainly softer than direct flash.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inkista/5968838​073/

Thanks for the link. The problem I have is portability. In addition to what I normally shoot, every once in a while I shoot car shows just for fun and relaxation. The distance to the models vary a lot, some farther away, some really, really close (which can't be avoided many times). You can't really drag around a light stand and shoot off camera (although i did see one brave soul that tried) due to the amount of people and space.

For example, this girl was only about 4-5ft away due to the space and the fact that we were avoiding other photographers.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lostpacket/8628​287260/

Yup. Bouncing is a much better bet. My problem is I was at the San Diego Convention Center, where the hall is sized and crowded like this [grin]:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inkista/7653113​752/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inkista/3757598​928/

Really depends on how you use them, and what you are looking for from your light. I met one photographer who often uses small 6 inch octagonal boxes he made for his flashes to great effect in close up photography where he is able to place the flashes very close to the subject. (He also apparently has a pair of 10 foot parabolics in his studio that he uses just as often)

The advantage of the small modifiers is that of control. You can get a softer light than the bare flash would give, but you can also feather and block things out to get very strict control over where the light is falling, angle it is falling from, etc. If all you have are super large soft boxes, then it becomes very limiting in what effects you can really generate with them. If you want just a models shoulder to be lit with a relatively soft light that has a smooth fall off in the shadow with the rest of their body falling quickly to near black, then it will be kind of hard to achieve with a huge modifier.


Modifiers are tools, and as the saying goes: If you only have a hammer, then all problems become nails.

inkista wrote in post #15799998
Yup. Bouncing is a much better bet. My problem is I was at the San Diego Convention Center, where the hall is sized and crowded like this [grin]:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inkista/7653113​752/

No friendly low-hanging ceilings to help you out. Which is why some folks are nuts and do this:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inkista/3757598​928/

Wow look at the light in that venue and he's using that contraption

Maybe you might wanna consider a demb style bounce card? Where you can adjust the angle the bounce card rests.

The product that you linked is 3.5 x 5" so only about 2x the horizontal linear size of the native flash lens. Larger small softboxes can be about 5x7" or about 2.8x the linear dimension. Larger = softer.


First, using native lens of the flash from 20' away, a section of the total frame area so that you can see the shadow cast by an arm on a wall a couple feet behind. You can also see the shadow cast on the subject body by an object held in front. (I set up this shot to mimic a bride holding a bouquet in front of her while being photographed at a wedding.)

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15800159
Wow look at the light in that venue and he's using that contraption

That's up top where the food is. Inside the big hall, it's more like this:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inkista/3751581​286/

inkista wrote in post #15800376
That's up top where the food is. Inside the big hall, it's more like this:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inkista/3751581​286/

The aisle numbers go up to 3000s at the other end of the hall. You could try bouncing, but...

What I would do is figure out the color balance, gel my strobe to match, defuse it, keep it right over camera and use it as true fill about a stop, stop and half down from whatever the ambient was to keep the shadows from going to deep.

I have a Lumiquest Softbox that sees occasional use for indoor event photography under high, dark ceilings. At close range you can see a clear advantage. If you're 20 feet away, it's hard to see a difference vs. direct flash. Keep in mind a few things:
1) Because of the loss of efficiency, you'll have a hard time competing with the sun unless you're really close.
2) Anything that blocks the AF Assist beam will make things tough in a dark environment. I chose the original Lumiquest Softbox because it doesn't block the AF Assist beam.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #15799946
For example, this girl was only about 4-5ft away due to the space and the fact that we were avoiding other photographers.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lostpacket/8628​287260/
SIAM9935 by Gregg.Siam, on Flickr

For the shot i can't remember what I did. Due to the close proximity, i had to tilt the flash, use the bounce card, but i don't remember if I went to manual at 1/16th power or used ETTL. I was actually surprised I didn't get more harsh light than I did.

So, for these types of shots, I was looking for something to soften the light. Not sure if it is even possible.

That's pretty decent light quality, considering how close she is to the wall behind her. If you'd 'flagged' the flash (so there was no direct light hitting her at all) as you bounced it, the results might have been more of what you were looking for. Otherwise I'd say that's great light for a vertical grab-shot using only on-camera flash that you bounced over your left shoulder.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #15799811
I'm not talking about larger softboxes, but the small ones like this that many people velcrow to the flash. Do they really provide softer light?

I have a few items similar to that one; I use them on my OCF speedlights if I'm shooting outside on a windy day with no assistant. I just used one yesterday, as a matter of fact, and the results were better than I'd hoped for...no harsh shadows! I had the light stand fairly close to the couple, maybe three feet away.

Luckless wrote in post #15800115
If all you have are super large soft boxes, then it becomes very limiting in what effects you can really generate with them. If you want just a models shoulder to be lit with a relatively soft light that has a smooth fall off in the shadow with the rest of their body falling quickly to near black, then it will be kind of hard to achieve with a huge modifier.

You know you can put a scrim/flag to do that quite easily.