Soft Box vs. Umbrellas

Thank you, I appreciate that. She was easy going in general, and had a good smile.

I'd still like to know what's better about TMR's photos he posted, because my eyes honestly can't see it. To me they're just different, and don't have any more "purpose" or "mood" than mine, nor are the compositions, IMO, any better.

I have two vast blind spots: I can't play chess because I can't see past the first one or two moves, and I can't tell the difference between quality and non-quality photos and art. I still think that "light years ahead" of me is www.stepheneastwood.co​m - and there are plenty of others who are better than him.

Form, please don't take this the wrong way, but as you are asking I'll tell you my (impartial) impression of the differences.

Just from a completely uneducated amateur viewpoint, TMRs photos seem to have more clarity, less shadow, and truer color (although that may just be my monitor). Your photos are darker and with a more reddish tinge and softness, with little contrast (again, may be my screen). Very different moods, although I can't quantify "quality" between the two.

If you were going for a darker, softer mood, you got exactly what you intended. If he intended for lighting as he achieved, with much clarity and contrast, he got what he intended. If I was in his shoes I'd may have taken offense as well, because of the different style and mood of the images. You saying that your captures were equal to his, and your own weren't satisfactory, was the same as saying his weren't satisfactory. I think your photos are great, and his photos are great, but not the same style or mood at all, and thus not really comparable. Does that make sense?

Mine was a free shoot; I posted an ad searching for individuals who wanted graduation pictures, trading TFCD.

I agree that photographers have a different perception of quality from the clients, and that what looks technically good might not be as good to the client as it is to a photographer, and vice versa.

I'd never done a graduation shoot before, and I wanted the experience. I don't usually charge for things I've never done before.

Hi Form,

Given you asked, here is my unbiased opinion of the shots you posted (numbering them from top to bottom, top being 1 and bottom 5):

1) The hair light on camera left (subject right side of head) is too far forward so it lights up a lot of the hair but only on that side. There is no light in the hair on the other side of the head which creates a distracting imbalance IMHO and one side of the head looks much less contrasty this way to the extent that half of her head is blending into the dark background. I would have tried placing the light above and/or behind the subject to give lighting to both sides or at least would have tried to go for a lighter background...

The main light has a spot-light quality to it so half of the visible arms of the subject are lit and half are fading off into being much darker. I personally don't like that look but YMMV.

2) Much better, perhaps a bit off fill light on subject face, camera left would be nice. Also subject looking into camera would probably look nicer (to me anyway) and again the background is very dark for such dark hair.

3) This is your best one IMHO. If she were to be looking into camera it would be perfect. Perhaps just move the hair out of the eye...

4) and 5) Those look identical, just tighter crop and different background so my comments are the same for both. I think this is an example of fill or hair or rim lighting gone wrong. You have light on both sides of the camera facing cheek except in the middle there is a big shadow. Looks weird IMHO.

These are just my personal views so YMMV and in the end all that matters is that the clients like them!

PS. Please don't take this as bashing you or anything. I just tried to highlight what I thought could be done differently/better hence the negative look of my comments!

Best regards,

Anton

Robert that is very lovely work.

All fair comments and things for me to consider in future shoots. aia21: Thanks for being objective and providing information I can actually use to improve in the future

Soft boxes give square or rectangular high lights.
This is good for man made products.
Umbrellas give circular or spectral high lights, depending on distance and these are best for natural things.

I was down at the other end of the beach one time last summer when I saw a photographer with a huge umbrella, it had to be close to 10' across or more, has anyone seen anything like this?

Jannie,

You mean things like this one: https://www.bron.ch …_ps_en/detail.p​hp?nr=1484

That is a 330cm diameter one (= 10.8')...

I see B&H have got them for just over $8k...

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …B_Reflector_Umb​rella.html

Best regards,

Anton

Canon includes DPP with their cameras. Apparently Nikon decided to bundle arrogance instead of Capture NX.

form wrote in post #5497924
I'd still like to know what's better about TMR's photos he posted, because my eyes honestly can't see it.

Yours have a magenta cast and there's a halo around her in some of them that looks like sloppy masking. I don't see anything else that would be considered inferior to Robert's images. In fact I like the poses better, and that's pretty much the only thing that cannot be adjusted in post.

I decided to have a play with curves on one of yours. I could certainly do more but I kind of like this look. Has sort of a film feel to it, IMHO.


[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 270739 does not exist. ]

cdifoto wrote in post #5506531
I decided to have a play with curves on one of yours. I could certainly do more but I kind of like this look. Has sort of a film feel to it, IMHO.


[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 270739 does not exist. ]

Film feel - True. But unfortunately the feeling is i get is the movie Matrix becuase of the green fill

johnz wrote in post #5506596
Film feel - True. But unfortunately the feeling is i get is the movie Matrix becuase of the green fill

Funny I've seen that movie but I don't really remember much about it. Hmm.

I enjoy shooting with umbrellas. They are far more portable and quicker to setup and transport IMO. For a truely mobile use, it works great for me.

I would like to try out a softbox at some point but then feel I would have a craving for dedicated strobes rather than Speedlites.

elysium wrote in post #5506608
I would like to try out a softbox at some point but then feel I would have a craving for dedicated strobes rather than Speedlites.

That's another thing. IMHO you don't really get the full benefit of the softbox unless you have a studio strobe inside it. They pretty much need the strobe's ability to fill them up with light due to having a bare bulb.