reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits?

dadiOH wrote:

 > Alan Browne wrote:
 >
 >
  >>Regarding popularity, softboxes have been around for about 20
  >>years, umbrellas since ... well a long time.
 >
 >
 > Since Mardick ("Dick") Balli came up with them in the late 40s - early
 > 50s in Paris. In the current form at least.

Yeah, I posted that w/o really knowing ... but seems they were not that common
until the last 20 years ... again, may be my perception.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm</a>
-- [SI] gallery: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/shootin" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/shootin</a>
-- [SI] rulz: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

On 27/11/04 1:06 am, in article AqQpd.28707$i_4.1171792@weber.videotron.net,
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne DeleteThis @FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

 > Uranium Committee wrote:
 >
 >
  >>
  >> I am absolutely awestruck by your complete imbecility.
 >
 >
 > We take your imbecility as a matter of course, Mikey.
 >
You can't really blame UC for saying what he did. The original poster had
unfortunately turned himself inside out analyzing a 'problem' that was
complete bollocks. He needed putting out of his misery - and UC volunteered.
Now hopefully he will snap out of it, buy himself one of the excellent
portrait kits available, and start shooting.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

In article <6ed1146e.0411260041.55332805 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>, vincemoon@rcn.
com says...
 >
 >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

Rather than get into a theoretical discussion on the various effects that each
can possibly introduce to photograph, I'll state, it all depends on the
quality of light that the photographer wants. Beyond that, it's all about the
logistics of equipment, and budgets. It is the "quality" of light and the "
look" that dictates the choice - or should be.

Hunt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

Hunt wrote:
 > In article <6ed1146e.0411260041.55332805 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>, vincemoon@rcn.
 > com says...
 >
  >>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
 >
 >
 > Rather than get into a theoretical discussion on the various effects that each
 > can possibly introduce to photograph, I'll state, it all depends on the
 > quality of light that the photographer wants. Beyond that, it's all about the
 > logistics of equipment, and budgets. It is the "quality" of light and the "
 > look" that dictates the choice - or should be.
 >
 > Hunt
 >

What "quality" of light are you referring to? I can only think of
direction, intensity, and color of light. Since color and intensity
aren't the subject here, I'll ask about direction.

What is it about the direction of the light that you are looking for? A
diffuser will change the direction of the light by spreading it out
further. However, the size of the light stays the same. That means that
the angles of light from the flash to the subject are exactly the same
with the diffuser or without. It has to; light travels in straight lines.

If the angles are the same, the lines between the light and the shadow
are the same. That would mean that the hardness of that line has to be
the same.

The ONLY way to soften a light source is to make it bigger in relation
to the subject. The reason is that light can hit the subject from many
more directions. That means that light hitting any one spot is coming
from different angles. That gives you very soft and gradual transitions
from light to shadow.

The biggest light source is a cloudy day with nothing around the
subject. Light is coming from a complete hemisphere around the subject.
The angles of that light are hitting the subject from more than you can
count. It gives very soft light.

On a very clear, bright day the light source is the sun. Yes, it is very
big, but relative to the subject it is a point light. Practically
speaking all the light is coming from one point. That give very hard
shadow edges. Most strobes are point light sources, just about like the
sun. The only way to soften them is to make them bigger. Umbrellas and
softboxes expand the size of and the angles of light from the source.
That's why the light is softer.

Well, depending on the distance. A 4' softbox or 4' umbrella will soften
the same. However, if you are shooting a 2' bust of a person from 10'
away, it's not going to soften much. If you put that 4' light source
just outside of the camera view it will only be a couple of feet away.
The relationship to the subject is much bigger. That makes light hitting
the subject from a much wider area.

[The difference between the umbrella and the softbox probably has more
to do with the shape and how you can use that to control where the light
hits than it does with the device. Umbrellas tend to be round. Softboxes
come in several rectangular shapes.]

Diffusers in front of a flash that are the same size as the flash will
do nothing to soften the light. They will scatter the light around and
reduce the amount that is hitting the subject. That may improve the
light, but it doesn't soften it.

Little reflectors on flashes don't increase the size much, but if you
are close enough to the subject, it might slightly soften the shadow edges.

In my wedding photography, I shoot the photo-journalistic stuff with a
straight flash. A deflector big enough to do anything is way too much in
the way when moving around. I help the angle issue out by putting the
light on a bracket that makes the light come from about 12" above the
lens. That gives shadows and keeps out redeye.

The shadows are always hard edged. In situations where the flash is more
fill, the ambient light softens that to different degrees. Where the
flash is basically the only light, the hard edge isn't as much of a
problem as you might think. People want to see some modeling in the face
and dress. Light from 12" above does that. No one seems to care how hard
the light is.

If the location and time permit, I do like to setup a couple of studio
flashes with big umbrellas. This gives me much bigger light sources and
they come from two different angles. This really softens the light for
location portraits of the couple and groups. BTW, the silver umbrellas
vs. the non-silver ones makes no difference in softness of light - only
the intensity of the light.

Once again, photography comes down to light and it's angles.

Thanks,
Clyde<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

   > >>Regarding popularity, softboxes have been around for about 20
   > >>years, umbrellas since ... well a long time.
  > >
  > >
  > > Since Mardick ("Dick") Balli came up with them in the late 40s - early
  > > 50s in Paris. In the current form at least.
 >
 > Yeah, I posted that w/o really knowing ... but seems they were not that
common
 > until the last 20 years ... again, may be my perception.
 >

Umbrellas began to be talked about in the 60's when this new fangled
electronic stroboscopic flash became practical and more convenient than hot
lights.

However being much stronger they had to move the lights out more, from the
typical 3 feet that hot lights in metal bowls were used at, to about 6 feet
or so, this ment that the lighting became more specular, harsh so a larger
light source was utilized. While previously known it was not practical in
era when fabrics close to an ignition source was a hazard.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

 > 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.
  > >

First off, to avoid confusion most of us use the term diffusion in regards
to a softening of the lens with a filter device, I've always referred to a
light source diffusion as a scrim, and I'm a frequent proponent of soft
lighting with such diffusion panels, mentioning the use of a large 3x6 foot
Larson reflectasol is being more practical in the field than those round
twist and fold units that are so popular as reflectors, (you have a hard
time holding them horizontal) as the Larson's X frame and center shaft
offers the assistant holding it over the subjects more control during a
breeze, even better than the pvc pipe frames.

keep in mind that diffusion panels and reflectors are two completely
different concepts/uses. A diffusion panel IS the light source, a reflector
merely assists or augments the light source.


 > 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.

A diffusion panel spreads the light source out, this spreads the specular
highlights out, you can have the same volume of light, brightness, exposure
but with appropriate diffusion you will have fuller detail in the highlights
with less if not no blocked up speculars, and your transition zone or
penumbra to shadow will be longer, less abrupt which means the shadow areas
will be less obvious.

The main job of a reflector is to kick a bare kiss of light back to the
shadow side, and does its best work in lighting situations that visually, as
you look at the subject, looks fine as it is, remember that the photographic
process adds contrast, so to get the scene we see with our eyes we need to
visually over fill it with a reflector so the photographic process,
especially with film, can expand the contrast back out again to what we
really want. this part is confusing to describe, hard to learn, thank you
Monte for your patience in beating it into my feeble brain.


 >
 > 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.


huh? boy I am confused, see previous paragraph about my feeble brain. a
reflector can change color temp of the light if the reflector has an
inherent color, or reflects light with a shift. IE: gold tone reflectors,
or the blue cast that aluminum foil can add to the light it reflects. But
color temps can be changed by many factors, changing the power output of
many flash systems can shift the color temp of the light output, at least
all the endless white lightning/photogenic arguments will let you believe
that a fanning of a stack of proofs will give a rainbow of color shifts.
 >
 > 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?

now I'm even more confused, are you talking about reflectors as in parabolic
reflectors in a light source? a bounce off umbrella vs a shoot through?

this dazed and confused reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at
yahoogroups.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

 >
 > keep in mind that diffusion panels and reflectors are two completely
 > different concepts/uses. A diffusion panel IS the light source, a reflector
 > merely assists or augments the light source.
 >

A reflector, even a free standing fill-in, is as much a 'light source' as
any other, and should be seen as such. Picky, I know, but it helps to
understand the bigger picture. (pun intended)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

In article <N9wqd.579717$mD.113901@attbi_s02>, lughclyde DeleteThis @attbi.comedy says...
 >
 >Hunt wrote:
  >> In article <6ed1146e.0411260041.55332805 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>,
vincemoon@rcn.
  >> com says...
  >>
   >>>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
  >>
  >>
  >> Rather than get into a theoretical discussion on the various effects that
each
 >
  >> can possibly introduce to photograph, I'll state, it all depends on the
  >> quality of light that the photographer wants. Beyond that, it's all about
the
  >> logistics of equipment, and budgets. It is the "quality" of light and the "
  >> look" that dictates the choice - or should be.
  >>
  >> Hunt
  >>
 >
 >What "quality" of light are you referring to? I can only think of
 >direction, intensity, and color of light. Since color and intensity
 >aren't the subject here, I'll ask about direction.
 >
 >What is it about the direction of the light that you are looking for? A
 >diffuser will change the direction of the light by spreading it out
 >further. However, the size of the light stays the same. That means that
 >the angles of light from the flash to the subject are exactly the same
 >with the diffuser or without. It has to; light travels in straight lines.
 >
 >If the angles are the same, the lines between the light and the shadow
 >are the same. That would mean that the hardness of that line has to be
 >the same.
 >
 >The ONLY way to soften a light source is to make it bigger in relation
 >to the subject. The reason is that light can hit the subject from many
 >more directions. That means that light hitting any one spot is coming
 >from different angles. That gives you very soft and gradual transitions
 >from light to shadow.
 >
 >The biggest light source is a cloudy day with nothing around the
 >subject. Light is coming from a complete hemisphere around the subject.
 >The angles of that light are hitting the subject from more than you can
 >count. It gives very soft light.
 >
 >On a very clear, bright day the light source is the sun. Yes, it is very
 >big, but relative to the subject it is a point light. Practically
 >speaking all the light is coming from one point. That give very hard
 >shadow edges. Most strobes are point light sources, just about like the
 >sun. The only way to soften them is to make them bigger. Umbrellas and
 >softboxes expand the size of and the angles of light from the source.
 >That's why the light is softer.
 >
 >Well, depending on the distance. A 4' softbox or 4' umbrella will soften
 >the same. However, if you are shooting a 2' bust of a person from 10'
 >away, it's not going to soften much. If you put that 4' light source
 >just outside of the camera view it will only be a couple of feet away.
 >The relationship to the subject is much bigger. That makes light hitting
 >the subject from a much wider area.
 >
 >[The difference between the umbrella and the softbox probably has more
 >to do with the shape and how you can use that to control where the light
 >hits than it does with the device. Umbrellas tend to be round. Softboxes
 >come in several rectangular shapes.]
 >
 >Diffusers in front of a flash that are the same size as the flash will
 >do nothing to soften the light. They will scatter the light around and
 >reduce the amount that is hitting the subject. That may improve the
 >light, but it doesn't soften it.
 >
 >Little reflectors on flashes don't increase the size much, but if you
 >are close enough to the subject, it might slightly soften the shadow edges.
 >
 >In my wedding photography, I shoot the photo-journalistic stuff with a
 >straight flash. A deflector big enough to do anything is way too much in
 >the way when moving around. I help the angle issue out by putting the
 >light on a bracket that makes the light come from about 12" above the
 >lens. That gives shadows and keeps out redeye.
 >
 >The shadows are always hard edged. In situations where the flash is more
 >fill, the ambient light softens that to different degrees. Where the
 >flash is basically the only light, the hard edge isn't as much of a
 >problem as you might think. People want to see some modeling in the face
 >and dress. Light from 12" above does that. No one seems to care how hard
 >the light is.
 >
 >If the location and time permit, I do like to setup a couple of studio
 >flashes with big umbrellas. This gives me much bigger light sources and
 >they come from two different angles. This really softens the light for
 >location portraits of the couple and groups. BTW, the silver umbrellas
 >vs. the non-silver ones makes no difference in softness of light - only
 >the intensity of the light.
 >
 >Once again, photography comes down to light and it's angles.
 >
 >Thanks,
 >Clyde

"Quality of light" is basically the diffusion characteristics of the media
upon which, or through which, the light interacts. A simple example would be
the "quality" of North light v direct sunlight. The daytime North sky is the
world's largest "softbox."

Hunt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

Hunt wrote:

 > A simple example would be
 > the "quality" of North light v direct sunlight. The daytime North sky is the
 > world's largest "softbox."

....and rather blue requiring filtration.
(nits: and that applies to the northern hemishere on a cloudless day)


A better natural softbox is when there is just sufficent cloud cover to all but
mask the sun completely... in this case there is no (or extemely little) color
shift, and you can shoot in most directions with the softlight.


Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm</a>
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/shootin" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/shootin</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

In article <N9wqd.579717$mD.113901@attbi_s02>, lughclyde.TakeThisOut@attbi.comedy says...
 >
 >Hunt wrote:
  >> In article <6ed1146e.0411260041.55332805.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>,
vincemoon@rcn.
  >> com says...
  >>
   >>>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
  >>
  >>
  >> Rather than get into a theoretical discussion on the various effects that
each
 >
  >> can possibly introduce to photograph, I'll state, it all depends on the
  >> quality of light that the photographer wants. Beyond that, it's all about
the
  >> logistics of equipment, and budgets. It is the "quality" of light and the "
  >> look" that dictates the choice - or should be.
  >>
  >> Hunt
  >>
 >
 >What "quality" of light are you referring to? I can only think of
 >direction, intensity, and color of light. Since color and intensity
 >aren't the subject here, I'll ask about direction.
 >
 >What is it about the direction of the light that you are looking for? A
 >diffuser will change the direction of the light by spreading it out
 >further. However, the size of the light stays the same. That means that
 >the angles of light from the flash to the subject are exactly the same
 >with the diffuser or without. It has to; light travels in straight lines.

**Yes, the lines are "straight," but not parallel. They eminate from a point
as a cone. The pattern of a reflector flood will be larger, the farther you
are from the instrument.**
 >
 >If the angles are the same, the lines between the light and the shadow
 >are the same. That would mean that the hardness of that line has to be
 >the same.
 >
 >The ONLY way to soften a light source is to make it bigger in relation
 >to the subject. The reason is that light can hit the subject from many
 >more directions. That means that light hitting any one spot is coming
 >from different angles. That gives you very soft and gradual transitions
 >from light to shadow.
 >
 >The biggest light source is a cloudy day with nothing around the
 >subject. Light is coming from a complete hemisphere around the subject.
 >The angles of that light are hitting the subject from more than you can
 >count. It gives very soft light.
 >
 >On a very clear, bright day the light source is the sun. Yes, it is very
 >big, but relative to the subject it is a point light. Practically
 >speaking all the light is coming from one point. That give very hard
 >shadow edges. Most strobes are point light sources, just about like the
 >sun. The only way to soften them is to make them bigger. Umbrellas and
 >softboxes expand the size of and the angles of light from the source.
 >That's why the light is softer.
 >
 >Well, depending on the distance. A 4' softbox or 4' umbrella will soften
 >the same. However, if you are shooting a 2' bust of a person from 10'
 >away, it's not going to soften much. If you put that 4' light source
 >just outside of the camera view it will only be a couple of feet away.
 >The relationship to the subject is much bigger. That makes light hitting
 >the subject from a much wider area.
 >
 >[The difference between the umbrella and the softbox probably has more
 >to do with the shape and how you can use that to control where the light
 >hits than it does with the device. Umbrellas tend to be round. Softboxes
 >come in several rectangular shapes.]
 >
 >Diffusers in front of a flash that are the same size as the flash will
 >do nothing to soften the light. They will scatter the light around and
 >reduce the amount that is hitting the subject. That may improve the
 >light, but it doesn't soften it.
 >
 >Little reflectors on flashes don't increase the size much, but if you
 >are close enough to the subject, it might slightly soften the shadow edges.
 >
 >In my wedding photography, I shoot the photo-journalistic stuff with a
 >straight flash. A deflector big enough to do anything is way too much in
 >the way when moving around. I help the angle issue out by putting the
 >light on a bracket that makes the light come from about 12" above the
 >lens. That gives shadows and keeps out redeye.
 >
 >The shadows are always hard edged. In situations where the flash is more
 >fill, the ambient light softens that to different degrees. Where the
 >flash is basically the only light, the hard edge isn't as much of a
 >problem as you might think. People want to see some modeling in the face
 >and dress. Light from 12" above does that. No one seems to care how hard
 >the light is.
 >
 >If the location and time permit, I do like to setup a couple of studio
 >flashes with big umbrellas. This gives me much bigger light sources and
 >they come from two different angles. This really softens the light for
 >location portraits of the couple and groups. BTW, the silver umbrellas
 >vs. the non-silver ones makes no difference in softness of light - only
 >the intensity of the light.
 >
 >Once again, photography comes down to light and it's angles.
 >
 >Thanks,
 >Clyde<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

"Clyde" <lughclyde.RemoveThis@attbi.comedy> wrote in message
news:N9wqd.579717$mD.113901@attbi_s02...
[SNIP]
 > What is it about the direction of the light that you are looking for? A
 > diffuser will change the direction of the light by spreading it out
 > further. However, the size of the light stays the same. That means that
 > the angles of light from the flash to the subject are exactly the same
 > with the diffuser or without. It has to; light travels in straight lines.

A big diffuser, placed far enough in front of the light source that all of
its back is illuminated, works like a big light. Assuming it is a decent
diffusing material that is. Yes if it was transparent the light would pass
straight through and act as if there was no diffusion at all. But the more
effective a diffuser it is the more it scatters the light, so the more it
acts like a big source, and the less there is a hot spot in the middle. Of
course, the more efficient the diffuser the more light it ends up absorbing
too, so you get ever lower efficiency.

If this wasn't true, incidentally, don't you think California Sunbounce
would go out of business

[SNIP]
 >
 > [The difference between the umbrella and the softbox probably has more
 > to do with the shape and how you can use that to control where the light
 > hits than it does with the device. Umbrellas tend to be round. Softboxes
 > come in several rectangular shapes.]

Softboxes tend to be more efficient. They also avoid the back-scatter you
get with a shoot-through umbrella, with its attendant inefficiency and
possible problems if it ends up where you don't want light, and have less of
a hot-spot than a reflector umbrella. Something like an umbrella box works
just like a softbox though, it is true, and while it has the same shape as
an umbrella, it also has most of its ease of packing and transport, which
few softboxes do.

 >
 > Diffusers in front of a flash that are the same size as the flash will
 > do nothing to soften the light. They will scatter the light around and
 > reduce the amount that is hitting the subject. That may improve the
 > light, but it doesn't soften it.

Well, if the scatter is then reflected onto the subject from walls and
ceilings, that will soften the light. That's the principle the Stoffen was
designed for, though many people seem to think they work OK just as
diffusers without needing the scattered light to bounce back to the subject.

[SNIP]
 >
 > If the location and time permit, I do like to setup a couple of studio
 > flashes with big umbrellas. This gives me much bigger light sources and
 > they come from two different angles. This really softens the light for
 > location portraits of the couple and groups. BTW, the silver umbrellas
 > vs. the non-silver ones makes no difference in softness of light - only
 > the intensity of the light.

Silver ones tend to give slightly harder shadows in my experience, because
the reflected light is scattered over a smaller angle by each part of the
umbrella - that is each part of the subject is lit by more intense
reflection from less of the umbrella area, while with a soft white umbrella
each part is lit by less intense reflection but from more of the area of the
umbrella. This difference only really shows up with the umbrella quite
close to the subject though, it seems to me, and isn't a 'big' difference.



Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

When there are a lot of specialist for this area
I would like to use your know-how.

Is it possible to use one or several layers of the bubble-foil
[for protecting fragile goods] as cheap diffuser?
[I know that some heating protection is necessary].

Or forget it anyway?

Many thanks.
--
Rado1
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? 

In article <coito5$1dsi$1@news.nextra.cz>, rado.TakeThisOut@alert.sk says...
 >
 >When there are a lot of specialist for this area
 >I would like to use your know-how.
 >
 >Is it possible to use one or several layers of the bubble-foil
 >[for protecting fragile goods] as cheap diffuser?
 >[I know that some heating protection is necessary].
 >
 >Or forget it anyway?
 >
 >Many thanks.
 >--
 >Rado1

Fist thought is that you might get some very interesting lenticular
highlights! You might want to either visit a cine supply store for Rosco-lux,
or similar, or a drafting supply shop for Herculine, or another frosted
drafting medium. Now, the sheet foam packing might work fine, but you'll lose
a lot of F's, as that stuff is thick.

Hunt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits?