A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing People
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 26th 04, 04:46 PM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Uranium Committee wrote:

This is without doubt the most incomprehensible post this year.

It's very comprehensible. Well thought out question, well explored, and
thanks for posting it.

"UC" is, er, has a reputation. Expect it to morph into another before
absolutely everyone but me has killfiled it.

--

John McWilliams
  #12  
Old November 26th 04, 05:03 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Virgil Hobbs wrote:

SNIPPED
Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
diffusers?


First off, regarding the amount of light, the difuser seems to be more efficient
than a reflector in my experience and with the materials I use.

Regarding color, whether refelcted or difused, the light will take on the color
of the material. Difuser (softboxes) use a color neutral material, but a color
filter insert can change this subtely or dramatically. Reflectors can also be
color neutral or whatever fits the day. The larger the reflecting surface the
more difficult it is to illuminate it, and the more light is lost.

I've used thin cotton sheets as a difused source with the strobes set about 6
feet behind them ... this provided about 50 square feet of surface. The
photographer can stand right in front of this and hardly affect the amount of
light on the subject.

Regarding popularity, softboxes have been around for about 20 years, umbrellas
since ... well a long time. And umbrellas HAVE been used as difused sources
(shining light through an umbrella made of thin silk or cotton) for ... a long
time. Umbrellas are a lot cheaper than softboxes. But with umbrellas used as a
difuser there is a lot of spilled light that needs to be controlled or accepted.

Umbrellas and other refelectors generally take less time to set up than large
softboxes. Other difusion sources can include large frames with a thin white
material stretched over them (difuse all sorts of light, including sunlight).

When using a reflector, if the source light is distant from the reflector, then
both paths have to be managed. If it is refected in an umbrella, then it is
little different than a softbox.

IMO, the qualities ("softness") of the light off of a reflector like an umbrella
and those out of a softbox are little different, except in catchlights.

Catchlights in glasses and eyes are more pleasing when the shape is round. Most
softboxes are rectangular, so this needs to be carefully controlled.

In both cases, the larger the surface and the closer to the subject, then the
softest light is achieved.

MO

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
  #13  
Old November 26th 04, 05:03 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Virgil Hobbs wrote:

SNIPPED
Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
diffusers?


First off, regarding the amount of light, the difuser seems to be more efficient
than a reflector in my experience and with the materials I use.

Regarding color, whether refelcted or difused, the light will take on the color
of the material. Difuser (softboxes) use a color neutral material, but a color
filter insert can change this subtely or dramatically. Reflectors can also be
color neutral or whatever fits the day. The larger the reflecting surface the
more difficult it is to illuminate it, and the more light is lost.

I've used thin cotton sheets as a difused source with the strobes set about 6
feet behind them ... this provided about 50 square feet of surface. The
photographer can stand right in front of this and hardly affect the amount of
light on the subject.

Regarding popularity, softboxes have been around for about 20 years, umbrellas
since ... well a long time. And umbrellas HAVE been used as difused sources
(shining light through an umbrella made of thin silk or cotton) for ... a long
time. Umbrellas are a lot cheaper than softboxes. But with umbrellas used as a
difuser there is a lot of spilled light that needs to be controlled or accepted.

Umbrellas and other refelectors generally take less time to set up than large
softboxes. Other difusion sources can include large frames with a thin white
material stretched over them (difuse all sorts of light, including sunlight).

When using a reflector, if the source light is distant from the reflector, then
both paths have to be managed. If it is refected in an umbrella, then it is
little different than a softbox.

IMO, the qualities ("softness") of the light off of a reflector like an umbrella
and those out of a softbox are little different, except in catchlights.

Catchlights in glasses and eyes are more pleasing when the shape is round. Most
softboxes are rectangular, so this needs to be carefully controlled.

In both cases, the larger the surface and the closer to the subject, then the
softest light is achieved.

MO

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
  #14  
Old November 26th 04, 05:55 PM
BT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Take a look at the product catalog available at http://www.photoflex.com.
This is not an endorsement of Photoflex products. I have found, however,
that they do a good job of demonstrating the use of their products and
showing the result of their line of softboxes and reflectors, etc. This
will help you to visualize the results of using the different types of
lighting techniques and help you determine what you need to get the results
that you're looking for--irrespective of the equipment manufacturer that you
choose.


Thanks,
Bruce

"David Virgil Hobbs" wrote in message
om...
In this post by reflector I mean an object that reflects light and by
diffuser I mean an object through which light is shone similarly to a
filter.

I have been spending some time researching reflectors versus diffusers
in portrait photography. I was irritated but not surprised to find
very little discussion on the net regarding choosing between the two.

All I could find was that reflectors are more well known amongst the
general population than diffusers; that some people find from their
practical experience that diffusers do not work well; that some people
think diffusers do not work because they do not increase the area of
the source of the light significantly; that european photographers are
supposed to be into diffusers as opposed to reflectors; that diffusers
take alot of the brightness out of the light that hits the subject;
and that people seem to think of reflectors as more of an outdoors
type of thing and diffusers as more of an indoors type of thing.

Coming out of my own mind as opposed to internet research, my thinking
has been that since a problem is the color temperature of reflected
light is different than the color temperature of direct light,
therefore reflected light should be used instead of direct light,
because use of direct light unavoidably leads to conflicts between
indirect and direct light; and, so, therefore, the reflector is a
better solution than the diffuser because the reflector will produce
light that does not clash with direct light whereas the diffuser will
give rise to the direct diffused light and then also the reflected
version of the diffused light.

I have also been thinking that reflectors might do a better job of
mimicking reflected light such as shade light and light bouncing off
of walls whereas diffusers would do a better job of mimicking soft
light sources such as overhead fluorescent all over a big ceiling or a
shaded ceiling light. I think I realize a truth in that I understand
that since the result in photography is an exaggeration of contrast,
partially due to the fact that the camera sees color differences based
on color temp differences that the eye does not see, therefore the
mimicking lights should be softer than the lights they mimick.

Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
diffusers?




David Virgil Hobbs
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon



  #15  
Old November 26th 04, 06:24 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Uranium Committee wrote:

This is without doubt the most incomprehensible post this year.


It's okay Mikey, any post with more than 25 words is certainly beyond your
attention span.
  #16  
Old November 26th 04, 06:57 PM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news:sdIpd.465371$D%.123277@attbi_s51...
Uranium Committee wrote:

This is without doubt the most incomprehensible post this year.

It's very comprehensible. Well thought out question, well explored, and
thanks for posting it.

"UC" is, er, has a reputation. Expect it to morph into another before
absolutely everyone but me has killfiled it.

--

John McWilliams


I, for one, have no plans to kill file UC. I find him very valuable for
entertainment on slow evenings.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #17  
Old November 26th 04, 06:57 PM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news:sdIpd.465371$D%.123277@attbi_s51...
Uranium Committee wrote:

This is without doubt the most incomprehensible post this year.

It's very comprehensible. Well thought out question, well explored, and
thanks for posting it.

"UC" is, er, has a reputation. Expect it to morph into another before
absolutely everyone but me has killfiled it.

--

John McWilliams


I, for one, have no plans to kill file UC. I find him very valuable for
entertainment on slow evenings.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #18  
Old November 27th 04, 01:09 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message ,
McLeod wrote:

So putting a small diffuser like a piece of tracing paper over an on
camera flash unit does nothing but cut the power of the flash and
possibly smooth out any effects caused by the internal parabolic
reflector and lens of the flash unit.


Unless it is large and far from the flash; then the light hits the
subject from a greater range of angles.
--


John P Sheehy

  #19  
Old November 27th 04, 01:09 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message ,
McLeod wrote:

So putting a small diffuser like a piece of tracing paper over an on
camera flash unit does nothing but cut the power of the flash and
possibly smooth out any effects caused by the internal parabolic
reflector and lens of the flash unit.


Unless it is large and far from the flash; then the light hits the
subject from a greater range of angles.
--


John P Sheehy

  #20  
Old November 27th 04, 01:26 AM
Uranium Committee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(David Virgil Hobbs) wrote in message . com...
In this post by reflector I mean an object that reflects light and by
diffuser I mean an object through which light is shone similarly to a
filter.


Wow, what an insight!

I have been spending some time researching reflectors versus diffusers
in portrait photography. I was irritated but not surprised to find
very little discussion on the net regarding choosing between the two.


Irritated? What right do you have to be irritated? Use your brain!

All I could find was that reflectors are more well known amongst the
general population than diffusers;


HUH? Who said that?

that some people find from their
practical experience that diffusers do not work well;


What the hell are you talking about? Soft boxes are widely used by
pros.

that some people
think diffusers do not work because they do not increase the area of
the source of the light significantly;


Of course they do. That's what a soft-box is!

that european photographers are
supposed to be into diffusers as opposed to reflectors;


Who said that?

that diffusers
take alot of the brightness out of the light that hits the subject;


'Take a lot of the brightness out'? WTF?

and that people seem to think of reflectors as more of an outdoors
type of thing and diffusers as more of an indoors type of thing.


Soft boxes are used on light sources. Outdoors, they are used when the
light sources are taken outside.

Coming out of my own mind as opposed to internet research, my thinking
has been that since a problem is the color temperature of reflected
light is different than the color temperature of direct light,


What are you talking about? Reflection does not change the color
temperature of light unless the reflector is not white or silver.

therefore reflected light should be used instead of direct light,
because use of direct light unavoidably leads to conflicts between
indirect and direct light;


'Conflicts'? What does that mean?

and, so, therefore, the reflector is a
better solution than the diffuser because the reflector will produce
light that does not clash with direct light whereas the diffuser will
give rise to the direct diffused light and then also the reflected
version of the diffused light.


'Clash'? How the hell does light 'clash'?

I have also been thinking that reflectors might do a better job of
mimicking reflected light such as shade light and light bouncing off
of walls


'Reflectors....mimicking reflected light.....' Now there's one for the
ages!

whereas diffusers would do a better job of mimicking soft
light sources such as overhead fluorescent all over a big ceiling or a
shaded ceiling light. I think I realize a truth in that I understand
that since the result in photography is an exaggeration of contrast,


HUH?

partially due to the fact that the camera sees color differences based
on color temp differences that the eye does not see,


HUH?

therefore the
mimicking lights should be softer than the lights they mimick.


HUH?

Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
diffusers?




David Virgil Hobbs
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon

I am absolutely awestruck by your complete imbecility.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? David Virgil Hobbs Digital Photography 50 December 5th 04 08:06 PM
reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? David Virgil Hobbs 35mm Photo Equipment 45 December 5th 04 08:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.