Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting 
Thread started 24 Jan 2012 (Tuesday) 12:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

One Big softbox or Two smaller ones?

 
purpletiger
Member
63 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Abode Of Peace
     
Jan 24, 2012 12:17 |  #1

I'm looking for something that can do full length portraits. I would imagine this would mean getting a really big softbox/octa about the height of the subject. I was wondering tho if anyone has had success with two smaller softboxes say 24x36" and stack one on top of the other to achieve the same result? I'm just concerned a really big softbox would be unwieldy and difficult to set up in a confined space where as two smaller ones would be easier and more versatile in the long run?


Light Is Everything

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,506 posts
Likes: 3479
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jan 24, 2012 12:22 |  #2

I assume you need this for indoors. I would get the bigger one. If space an issue get the shallow ones. Mike posted about Aurora softboxes last week or so. With two I think it will be harder to manage.


Fuji XT-1, 18-55mm
Sony A7rIV, , Tamron 28-200mm, Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art FE, Sony 85mm f1.8 FE, Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art FE
Fuji GFX50s, 23mm f4, 32-64mm, 45mm f2.8, 110mm f2, 120mm f4 macro
Canon 24mm TSE-II, 85mm f1.2 L II, 90mm TSE-II Macro, 300mm f2.8 IS I

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,917 posts
Gallery: 561 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 14911
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 24, 2012 12:24 |  #3

One big box would allow you to use one strobe. two smaller boxes would require two strobes, so which seems more unwieldy to you?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
15,918 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 2264
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jan 24, 2012 12:33 |  #4

I was looking into the same thing. I have a photoflex 36X48, but to do over would have maybe looked at the shallow Chimera.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
purpletiger
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
63 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Abode Of Peace
     
Jan 24, 2012 12:55 |  #5

bobbyz wrote in post #13760441 (external link)
I assume you need this for indoors. I would get the bigger one. If space an issue get the shallow ones. Mike posted about Aurora softboxes last week or so. With two I think it will be harder to manage.

About half and half. The reason I'm getting softboxes as opposed to umbrellas is cos they're less susceptible to the effects of wind. Ok I'll have a look at Auroras.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13760447 (external link)
One big box would allow you to use one strobe. two smaller boxes would require two strobes, so which seems more unwieldy to you?

I already have two speedlites with another 2 eBay flashes on their way. I'm sticking to these for the time being instead of studio strobes for the aforementioned 'outdoor' shoots. The other bit of rationale is - smaller softboxes can be powered by less powerful flashes, bigger softboxes need proper strobes, etc.


Light Is Everything

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,917 posts
Gallery: 561 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 14911
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 24, 2012 13:01 |  #6

Its not so much about power, as it is about spread of light. Studio strobes dont have focusing lenses like speedlites. Thats the size limiter. Your initial post didnt say white type of lights, but only mentioned convenience.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,506 posts
Likes: 3479
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jan 24, 2012 13:41 |  #7

purpletiger wrote in post #13760636 (external link)
The other bit of rationale is - smaller softboxes can be powered by less powerful flashes, bigger softboxes need proper strobes, etc.

What makes you think that? Why would bigger softbox eat more light?

For my outdoors I am getting by using medium photoflex as well as 37" octa. You can check at:

www.bobbyzphotography.​com/portraits (external link)

I have 5' octa and not use it outdoors.


Fuji XT-1, 18-55mm
Sony A7rIV, , Tamron 28-200mm, Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art FE, Sony 85mm f1.8 FE, Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art FE
Fuji GFX50s, 23mm f4, 32-64mm, 45mm f2.8, 110mm f2, 120mm f4 macro
Canon 24mm TSE-II, 85mm f1.2 L II, 90mm TSE-II Macro, 300mm f2.8 IS I

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
15,918 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 2264
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jan 24, 2012 15:17 |  #8

bobbyz wrote in post #13760893 (external link)
What makes you think that? Why would bigger softbox eat more light?

For my outdoors I am getting by using medium photoflex as well as 37" octa. You can check at:

www.bobbyzphotography.​com/portraits (external link)

I have 5' octa and not use it outdoors.

Excellent work bobbyz!


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,506 posts
Likes: 3479
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jan 24, 2012 16:48 |  #9

windpig wrote in post #13761458 (external link)
Excellent work bobbyz!

Thanks. Most things learned from forum members here.


Fuji XT-1, 18-55mm
Sony A7rIV, , Tamron 28-200mm, Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art FE, Sony 85mm f1.8 FE, Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art FE
Fuji GFX50s, 23mm f4, 32-64mm, 45mm f2.8, 110mm f2, 120mm f4 macro
Canon 24mm TSE-II, 85mm f1.2 L II, 90mm TSE-II Macro, 300mm f2.8 IS I

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
15,918 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 2264
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jan 24, 2012 16:57 |  #10

bobbyz wrote in post #13761965 (external link)
Thanks. Most things learned from forum members here.

Well, you certainly have been able to get some cute clientele.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
purpletiger
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
63 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Abode Of Peace
     
Jan 27, 2012 02:10 |  #11

bobbyz wrote in post #13760893 (external link)
What makes you think that? Why would bigger softbox eat more light?

For my outdoors I am getting by using medium photoflex as well as 37" octa. You can check at:

www.bobbyzphotography.​com/portraits (external link)

I have 5' octa and not use it outdoors.

So you reckon one 6 foot softbox/octa rather than 2 x 3 foot ones? Keep in mind I'm using hotshoe flashes rather than studio strobes? (Gorgeous photos btw!)


Light Is Everything

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,917 posts
Gallery: 561 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 14911
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 27, 2012 10:11 |  #12

purpletiger wrote in post #13776702 (external link)
So you reckon one 6 foot softbox/octa rather than 2 x 3 foot ones? Keep in mind I'm using hotshoe flashes rather than studio strobes? (Gorgeous photos btw!)

I rather doubt the spread of a single hotshoe flash is going to fill a 6ft box. It comes down to the focused lenses of the flash. They are meant to project light in a pattern that mimics the angle covered by most lenses when they are mounted in a hotshoe.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
15,918 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 2264
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jan 27, 2012 10:49 |  #13

purpletiger wrote in post #13776702 (external link)
So you reckon one 6 foot softbox/octa rather than 2 x 3 foot ones? Keep in mind I'm using hotshoe flashes rather than studio strobes? (Gorgeous photos btw!)

Would a test of a EX580II into a 53" Elinchrom octabox be beneficial to you?


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
15,918 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 2264
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jan 27, 2012 19:25 |  #14

I can't fit my 580 into my DIY hold that fits my studio modifiers, so I had to use the 430.
53" inch octabox with only outer diffuser

Shooting into a 60" white reflective umbrella with either the 580 or 430 yielded about the same results. Not sun killing, but certainly usable. Bump up to 200 or 400 ISO and no problem as long as you're not fighting ambient. open shade or shade is not an issue.

shot 1 is 36" away F8, 100 ISO, 1/125
shot 2 is 56" away F5.6, 100 ISO, 1/125


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ender78
Senior Member
Avatar
466 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 27, 2012 19:39 |  #15

Can I ask where you got the manequin. This is a fantastic example of lighting behaviour.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

7,067 views & 0 likes for this thread, 5 members have posted to it.
One Big softbox or Two smaller ones?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is SteveeY
1689 guests, 174 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.