Super helpful analysis. Thanks Anthony! I often shoot deep parabolic for two reasons... the first is the catch light. For me round handily beats a specular stop sign. The second? I found that if I push the diffusion back into the parabolic I can indeed narrow the spread front diffusion creates. That versatility comes in handy when I'm trying to control fall-off.
Great video! They’re definitely heavy and take up a lot of horizontal space. I wanted an easy setup option but, I’ve realized that a DEEP para wasn’t necessary for my needs. I mostly bought it for versatility but, it’s weight is a big issue.
@HW Photography weight is the main reason I don't use mine much, especially on location. For the minimal variance you get in light output and quality, it usually isn't worth the hassle of setting it up, counter weighting it, and having a stand and light durable enough to withstand the weight. I've since replaced all the sizes of my deep paras with regular octas.
Was about to pull the trigger on a 48" deep parabolic softbox after watching Karl's video 2 days back but you just saved me from doing it.. I guess I can still achieve the same focused beam of light from my 48" octobox using a diffuser and grid.. Thanks alot man..waiting for another podcast with you and Ryan..
@josh McDzz if I knew then what I knew now, I wouldn't have bought mine. For my style of shooting there really is minimal, minimal benefits in using the deep para, and a lot more negatives that makes it impractical. I usually use it when I'm in a location where it could possibly be damaged (heavy winds or I'm going to put it somewhere precarious); that way my feelings won't be hurt if something does happen to it. :-D
Not bad though- considering deep para acts like a large reflector and gives you more room to keep it further from your subject (without diffuser). Additionally you get better shaped catchlights :) Well done and thanks for doing the comparison!
I’ve actually tested these modifiers with the inner diffuser and it has near no impact on the light when combined with the deflector plate. Without the deflector plate, it does help to reduce the center hotspot. So these days I just use the plate and outer only. The inner diffusers on the Glow modifiers are such a pain to unbutton, I’m glad it worked out this way.
@Art_by _Adrian2 thank you kindly! If I would be more consistent with posting, maybe my channel would be bigger lol. At the end of the day I do this to help people, so all is good either way. I appreciate you watching and commenting.
@@AnthonyToglife absolutely and you definitely should have a much bigger channel I'm still trying to figure out which I should get lol it's going to be glow I just don't know if it should be the deep or the regular
I was thinking about buying one of these before Karl's video, appreciate the video further confirming what Karl said. I rarely if ever shoot undiffused so I wouldn't benefit from a deep parabolic.
@Jose Lara yeah, I wouldn't buy any more deep para's myself, and the ones I have to kinda use as "throw away" modifiers, don't really care if they get damaged or whatever.
@@AnthonyToglife I just ordered a 24” beauty dish, I got silver I feel like I should have gotten white though. I’ll probably order a white one as well lol
@@holdmyown32 ya know, I personally don't see a HUGE difference between the two when they're both diffused. I know people say the silver produces a more specular light and very faintly I can see it at times, but I think having the silver offers more versatility (can shoot with no diffusion for a punchy, specular light). But it doesn't hurt to have both really.
my biggest takeaway is that I can have my light (28" para) 5 feet away from the model before I get light spill on the ground...which will come in handy when the ambient light is at a minimum
Thanks man! I was just about to pull the trigger on the 38" Glow deep para for my AD300. I've been wondering about the weight though. Your test really helps, so now I'm going to think it through a little bit more.
@Tom Jamison it's definitely a heavier modifier and although I don't really have a problem when using it, I would certainly choose a similar size regular octabox over it if I had it at my disposal. But, I do like having the versatility of using it without diffusion if I'm going for a more edgy look so I'm still happy I have it. And sometimes I prefer the round catchlight versus the octagonal shape.
Interesting tests, Im curious if you could get the same results as the parabolic from the octabox with a grid and how putting a grid on both of them affects the light. Maybe in that case the octabox would prove to be more versatile..
@Anastasia Ray I'm thinking a grid would neutralize the two and there wouldn't be a discernible difference between them, but I'll have to play around with them and see.
I just saw the Karl Taylor video. I saw a huge different in b/w the octa and para w/ diffusion. His own images showed me I should buy a para. I don't understand how there wasn't an obvious difference in the lighting people saw. I wish this video had been on a model's face.
Well @Josh McCosh I would say you’re in the minority if you’re referring to the diffused comparisons 😉 Either way, both of our videos served their purpose - they helped you come to an informed decision. I appreciate you commenting.
I only bought the 48” deep para from glow because it was bigger than my 43” beauty dish. But the light quality is nearly identical with the baffle and diffusers in. The only benefit is being able to get a little farther away when I’m using Rembrandt lighting. One of these days they’re going to make a 7’ beauty dish and then I’ll finally be happy. 🤣
That would be a big beauty dish @stuffwarrensez LOL, but yeah, the marginal gains from the deep octa are definitely outweighed by the size and weight. My deep para's are pretty much my "throw away" modifiers now.
The goal of a softboxes is homogeneity at the front diffusion panel (parabolic reflectors goal is not homogeneity). Even light. No hotspot. It seems a deeper profile would accomplish this easier and accomplishing this in a shallower profile would need better geometry. I'd like to see a test of how well different diffusers accomplish this. That is what determines how good a softboxes is and if it's performing as it's meant to. Thanks for your hard work!
@R J Photo although I agree with what you've said, I would argue the geometry of the modifier would play a much bigger role in homogeneity than the front diffuser. I think even the best diffusion material out there would still suffer from hotspots when used on a poorly designed modifier.
@@AnthonyToglife Ahh, yes. My statement wasn't about the diffuser's front panel material it was different diffusers meaning different octoboxes/softboxes as light diffusers. I could have been more succinct. I expect an expensive broncolor softbox to diffuse light better than a glow diffuser. I expect they put more resources into the product to ensure that the light output at the front panel is homogeneous as their discerning customers would demand. And glow, less so ( Fyi-I buy Glow). I'd love to see a test of that. Would you, too? You rock for getting back to me quickly!
@@rockj8197 ya know, I think there's a line between quality and name tax. Take for example Apple (and disclaimer, I'm an Apple user), but their products, albeit good, are arguably overpriced for what you get. But the designs are modern and the ecosystem is stellar so we pay the "Apple Tax" nonetheless. I find Broncolor and Profoto and even Westcott to fall into this category. I don't think their products are that much superior to a brand like Glow. Their products are likely more durable and the quality may be marginally better, but I personally don't think one would see THAT much of a difference. Of course people who use those higher-end products may disagree, the way die-hard Apple fans will defend any and everything Apple does. It's all subjective I guess and whatever works for each person is what works. I would indeed like to see the comparisons you speak of, maybe I need to convince Broncolor and Profoto to send me some free stuff lolol.
@@AnthonyToglife , I think it may also be that, by the time photogs are billing enough for their business to afford Broncolor & Briese, they've gotten *so very good at creativity, working according to the client's brief, knowing what they want in hairmakeupwardrobeaccessoriesmodels, set design, background, color theory, lighting, using kickers, hairlights, key, & fill, feathering the light, knowing what contrast & falloff they want*, etc, that the high-end equipment complements their skill level. [Also, photogs doing advertorials/sponsored videos for Broncolor & Briese aren't mentioning how important the retoucher's contribution is to the final images]. (Just an idea).
@WednesdayRaven thank you kindly, very much appreciate you watching and commenting. These types of videos definitely take a lot of time and effort to make. But, I definitely plan to do more vids like this.
It really isn’t noticeable on an actual subject though, so in practical use a deep para doesn’t provide a ton of benefit over a regular octa. But it’s certainly noticeably heavier and more cumbersome to use.
Your test shows at 8 feet the quick octa has a horrible cold spot in the center due to the reflector plate. I'd be curious to see how bad removing the plate would cause a hot spot. Cold spots are no better than hot spots.
I haven't tested that specifically @Texshooter and I don't typically use these modifiers with no diffusion, but my guess is that there would be a hot spot in the center but it wouldn't be as pronounced as the cold spot with the plate.
My conclusion is that the point @Karl Taylor is trying to make in his videos about Broncolor parabolic modifiers is that they provide specific QUALITY of light on a subject lit by them. Your video, on the other hand, shows how modifiers focus/spread the light, which is a great addition to the general knowledge about how a different shape and/or structure of a modifier affects the light. I'm still having a hard time deciding what shape, size and type my next light modifier will be, but your video made this decision one step closer to make ;) As it comes to those "so called" parabolic modifiers, I guess it is more about them having more edges (typically 16 vs. 8 in standard octaboxes) - the best example to prove that it's a marketing catchword is the "parabolic umbrella" that in reality has nothing to do with a parabola, those are just more rounded (vide 16 edges) ;)
@@AnthonyToglife Might be so ;) but still - as I've seen someone else's video comparing Broncolor Para with Briese Focus and something from Profoto (if I remember it right) - those light modifiers (Broncolor Para) really outperform everything else in terms of the light quality on a model (and of course - everything is a matter of personal taste, after all ;) ).
If desired for portrait the deep will produce a much more natural shape of the light glint in the eyes but probably only necessary to consider for headshots
My guess is that a parabolic softbox distrubute the light more evenly. It would probably be more of a difference without the reflector in front of the beam of light. This would perhaps make a difference if the softbox is put close to the subject. A way to test this would be to take photos into the softboxes at low exposure.
@Svamp Träsk without the reflector there would most definitely be a hotspot in the center and the light spread likely would change. I personally think the light spread/falloff is a TAD smoother with the deep para with diffusion, but I really think it's splitting hairs.
To be effective, a parabola needs to be focussed, like a lens. An umbrella style softbox can be focussed, within limits, but if you have a fixed position at the back of the softbox, any effective focussing depends on the size of the flash/strobe. I think the lighter softbox plus a grid would do the job better, for most people.
It does for me @John Summerfield Photographer. The only deep para's I use these days are either my 20" or 28", mainly due to the small size not creating an issue when I boom the modifier.
I think it's not discussed @Vincent le because a lot of photographers don't find octagonal catch lights ugly, I surely don't. Really, a lot of photographers don't care much about the shape of the catch light at all, only that there is one. But to your point, I would rather use a black-backed umbrella with a sock - very similar look at probably 1/3 the payload.
Funny, how I see it differently. The light spread in Your examples is clearly (to me) more pleasant with the diffused deep soft box than the diffused octabox (talking about the area where the strongest light in the middle is changing into the "spread" light around the middle area). The tiles are more "defined" and clearer with the deep soft box in that area. That is actually what the "marketing guys" also are telling. Of course this is how the camera sees the reflections on the wall and there seems to be some difference in the color of light between the soft boxes which might affect my conclusion, but I still believe the perceived difference is real. Personally I haven't much used soft boxes in my hobby photography, but am now looking for nicest solution for tabletop still-live photography, why I bumped to Your and Karl's videos. For me, I would never choose the octabox shape as the shape of the reflections of light (were it from the eyes in portrait photography or from the still-life subjects) don't look "realistic". And it seems that most "round" soft boxes are "deep" :-). Don't know why. Anyway, I find it curious that neither of You tested the boxes with grids. Isn't grids widely used to "direct" the light? So my question unanswered is, is there any difference in the spread of light with grids? Thanks for taking the effort to do this video :-)
@Veijo Matikainen I don't see that difference when I look at the RAW files on my PC, but I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing them. I would still argue in a real world setting (shooting portraits, for example), any differences would be negligible at worst, minute at best.
Great video Thanks for sharing I personally have not used them but a lot of the glow products look bulky. I jumped into the profoto system and their octa’s are great. I do a lot of high school sports and I can pack light and still have exactly what I need. I also live in a mountain town and those things would be sails on most days. How does it do in the wind for you?
@Karl Mullings I would say the Glow modifiers aren't any more bulky than other Bowens mount modifiers, but that Bowens mount in general is definitely bulky. It's very difficult to travel with most of my Glow modifiers, unfortunately. With it being super windy here in Vegas many days, I tend to do the opposite of what most people would think, and I use bigger octa's. The bigger size, maybe surprisingly, handles better in the wind than my smaller modifiers. Of course I have to weight down the stands regardless. I do think I'm going to invest in some more portable gear that I can use when I travel, or just need to pack light for a local gig.
Using the parapolic softbox just shoot with the inner diffuser only and you'll get the best of both worlds. The inner diffuser is still big enough to have a big diffused light source. And the open space between the inner diffuser and the rim of the parabolic softbox acts as one big honeycomb cell of a honeycomb grid... but with silver lining inside instaed of black, so you don't lose light as much as you would using a normal black honeycomb grid. This works only on parabolic softboxes as the inner diffuser is much bigger than in normal softboxes and the "silver walls" from inner diffuser to the rim is nearly parallel to the flash' direction. Did anybody get what I mean?
@Kingdom Pictures and Media most definitely, sometimes heavier is better! I boom my lights often and in those instances, heavier works against me most of the time. What size modifiers are you using, out of curiosity?
@@kingpixmedia I just used my 38" deep para the other day and although yes, it definitely works better in wind in terms of weight, it was a big problem with the AD400 - I was struggling to keep it angled like I wanted it. The wind with the weight of the modifier was sometimes too much for the little bracket on the AD400 to handle.
Excellent video Anthony. You definitely answered my questions. But what if you use an umbrella ( 48/60 inch) silver interior with a diffuser, how does this compare?
Thank you @michael lekas. I don't own any silver-lined umbrella's so I can't test this but I honestly don't feel it would differ much from a regular octabox, especially at that size.
@Kenny Pringle let me enjoy my made-up words, lol. I appreciate you watching and commenting, and I look forward to uploading more content you'll hopefully enjoy as much.
I have a Glow Deep Parabolic softbox. The torque certainly is troublesome because the center of gravity is farther from the axis of rotation, but is it actually heavier?
@Daniel Bowers close to a 2lb difference between the Glow 48" deep para and 48" octa. Equates to almost double the weight, which when adding in the torque you mentioned above, it's quite a significant difference.
@KBrianR my apologies for the delayed response. To be frank, I don't always notice a difference between one diffusion versus two. I know when I've done some controlled testing there is indeed a difference but in real world, there's so many other variables that sometimes the differences are quite negligible. My general rule is that I use both unless I need maximum light output, in which I only use the outer to maximize my light output.
Thanks for your video and data points. My take away is the para w/ diffuser has a softer drop off (which I like), but is heavier and outputs less light than the octa. Do you have any opinion or sample shots of a white versus silver para?
Parabolic "softboxes" do cost more in India than the Octoboxes, hence they could qualify as a scam. But I agree that it need not be a scam even if it costs more to make them. Anyway thanks for confirming what Karl had claimed in terms of results in his video.
If I could go back I wouldn't buy any of Glow's deep para's @Ramesh B off the sheer fact that they are heavier than my octa's and they're kind of a pain to boom. But, since I have them, I use them because, why not?! Lol.
I don't think the light is the same, I agree that the spread is the same when you diffuse but the distance from the source to the diffuser matters a lot and the deep oct has that characteristic. You said that the light on the deep is a bit softer, and I think that is the benefit of this kind of modifier. Also, if you have a big deep octa you can use it as indirect light, and that is a game-changer. I a sucker for soft light. Thanks for the video!
@Jose Soriano I used the distance from the light itself just to keep things consistent. Obviously in the real world you could put both modifiers equal distance from the front of the modifier so the deep para wouldn't have an advantage. I do think there's a slight difference with the deep para's characteristic that I like but I also think it's so minimal that I wouldn't tell someone to buy the deep para over the regular octa just for that difference. I like my deep para's but they really are a pain sometimes due to their weight and size. Trying to fit a 38" deep para in a tight space is a real struggle sometimes, and when trying to boom it, takes a ton of counter weight. :-)
@@AnthonyToglife I’m talking about the distance between the bulb and the diffuser, on the deep is bigger than the normal Octa. You can noticed this on bigger modifiers
@Jose Soriano maaaan I don't think it makes much of a difference. The softness of the light is determined by the size of the light source relative to your subject. If you use an equal-sized deep para vs an octa, I can't see where the light would be any softer. The light may be slightly more directional but softer, I don't think so. I unfortunately don't have identically-sized deep para's and octa's or else I'd pull the ole mannequin out and test this. At the end of the day though I think photography is subjective and if you see a difference, that's all that matters. My opinion is irrelevant. :-)
@@AnthonyToglife I disagree with you on that. The softness is not only determined by the size of the modifier. The closer the source of the farther the bulb to the diffuser the softer the light. The light needs to travel more before hitting the diffuser. That’s why indirect deep parabolic are very soft since the light travels more before hitting the diffuser
@Jose Soriano if you meter the light and the light hitting the subject is the same intensity, I stand by my notion that the light won't be any softer. Light metering at, for example, f8 is what it is, regardless of how far the actual light is from the subject. If the front of the light is 1ft from the subject for both modifiers and the sizes are identical, the deep para isn't inherently going to make the light softer just because the light is traveling further. In fact, that should technically make it harder. If you move a light source further from your subject, the relative size of the light gets smaller and hence the light gets harder. If you were talking no diffusion, I may agree but with the diffusion, I'm just not buying what you're selling. ;-D Do you have identical-sized modifiers you could do some tests and provide me some sample images?
Thanks Anthony. It would be good to see a test with a tube based light (like a Godox AD300, AD600) . The speed light is going to be too directional to get the full effect of a deep parabolic (DP). Overall DP looks better to me - and in real life with an AD300 it works great. A inward facing parabolic (like the Broncolor) with a focusing rod takes it to the next level.
Very interesting point @Paul’s Cinema Reel! What if I use the bare bulb on the AD200? I have an AD400 but lugging that thing to a parking garage and setting it up would be a chore for this, lol.
Side note, I do think the deflector plate would help minimize or eliminate the issue with directionality of the speedlight but I’m still up for trying it with something different.
@@AnthonyToglife lol absolutely true. I just have a few AD300s and AD200's myself - that's about as much weight as I want to carry:) But yes the AD200 with the bulb attachment would be a very good test too. I actually ordered the deep parabolic 34" from Adorama as well - that's how I came across you video. I've seen some tests with the AD300 and it looks pretty good. Will run some tests myself when it comes in. I just followed you on Instagram (Paul Singh). Best regards.
@@paulscinemareel5671 you have GREAT work sir! Very tasteful and artistic, I love to see this level of work in that genre. I will definitely do the test with the bare bulb this weekend some time.
@@AnthonyToglife love your work as well. Greatly appreciated ! Thank you ! I should get my DP next week and will give a try soon. Was also thinking that something like a Stofen diffuser on the speedlight would spread the light a bit too. In some cases where space is tight and I need minimal light I revert to a Godox V1 but have the round (half-dome) diffuser on it . Quite honestly - not bad at all when using it with a 12x36 strip box.
@Fatima Zahra I'm assuming you're asking about modifiers? That's a tough question to answer because it depends on the look you're going but in general the bigger the better. You want nice, soft light and bigger modifiers will give you that. Glow's 48" octa would be a great choice but keep in mind you need a light powerful enough to work with that size of modifier. What lights do you have currently?
Let's be honest....90% of the time we are diffusing the modifier. Second, the only test that makes sense is the 2 foot test as it is the most common rule that the light should be equal distance to the subject with the size of the modifier. And finally, if you look at this test, the Parabolic has a smoother dispersion of light and the octa seems to be a bit brighter in the middle. So for me, the Parabolic is the better quality of light to me.
I just dropped a video on that whole ‘modifier equal distance to size’ “rule”, you should watch it 😉 But on a serious note, the differences aren’t anywhere near enough to offset the weight of deep paras. The differences you see on a cinder block wall are not seen on a human face.
Yeah, some people really love the more round catchlights. I (and I would argue just about any client) don't care much about the shape of a catchlight. To each their own for sure.
I think you missed the point here Anthony. Parabolic softboxes as described by Karl Taylor have a focusable light that is usually more accurate than what you show here-a parabolic reflector and a parabolic softbox. All you are comparing are two shoot thru reflectors that allow the user to put in diffusion layers to soften the light. A true parabolic modifyer attempts to limit the "hot spot" by the user focusing the light back into the umbrella like modifyer to help eliminate or make the "hot spot" larger. That umbrella-like modifyer is designed to throw that light further and more accurate.
@Bob Leverone Photography with all due respect, did you even watch my video? I said at the minute mark I never thought or expected deep parabolic modifiers to be or function as actual parabolics. My video was intended to focus on the light property of a deep para versus a regular octabox to see if there were any differences at all, AKA 100% marketing BS or only partially BS. I didn't miss any point Mr. Leverone. ;-)
A 25” and 28” modifier certainty don’t require a 600w strobe. Perhaps you should go watch my video where I demonstrate using a speedlight with a 60” modifier. The size of the strobe only matters with respect to flash power (wanting to keep it lower for either fast recycle time or faster flash duration, or distance).
I did watch your video twice, before writing my first reaction. I guess my real problem is that manufacturers are calling them parabolics and that's, inmho the marketing BS. You can see they aren't parabolics within your own lighting tests in the garage. It would probably make more sense to put an eggcrate grid on your para and compare that to a real parabolic. Sticking diffusion on the end just makes those reflectors into softboxes, reduces the highlights and reduces the light output. That was my point. A true parabolic would be much more concentrated and user controllable.
@Bob Leverone Photography can't disagree with you there. Quick frankly they could just be called deep octaboxes really, which I would have been okay with haha. I think the only point I was trying to make in the video is that there is a difference in light pattern between the deep para and a regular octa when the diffusion isn't there, and that those differences dissipate almost entirely when the diffusion is on. It would seem I wasn't clear on that on my vid; I wasn't trying to compare either of the modifiers to an actual parabolic umbrella or its properties, I was comparing them against each other to see if there was any reason to buy a deep para over a regular octa. I appreciate your insight.
I paused at 4:31, stared for 10 seconds, then laughed my butt off. Being a musician, we too obsess over split-hair differences that we never feel settled on until we purchase the more popular, higher priced of the available choices.
Thank you! A ez glow parabolic soft box came with my AD600 and I didn't understand its purpose so haven't used it. I like the gradient with the parabolic vs. the octa in your tests though, so I'll try it out. Your video has been the only helpful one on this topic, thank you for your time.
@monsterwerksvideo I agree, I like the gradient from the deep para more, but I will say sometimes the deep para is a pain to work with, especially outdoors. But I love the modifier and use it pretty regularly. Thank you for watching and for the kind words, it's much appreciated.
@Wallace Barnett a grid will do that. I personally don't care much for the contrasty look of grids so I don't use them unless I absolutely need to control the spread of light.
What's up Man. Man I have been busy .gotta catch up on some videos. Been looking at some better lighting. Nice video man .i learn something from every one of your videos.
This test was fantastic!! I'm looking at going with the EZ 36" with diffusion. Been using the Godox 24"-fold-out square modifier for years. Does not look like I need to worry about deep parabolic at this point! Thanks again
The 36” is my go-to these days! Definitely forgo the deep para’s, there’s not enough difference in the light output or pattern to justify the added weight, especially once you move up to the larger sizes!
I'm buying a parabolic within a month for video and photography. I think, maybe wrongly, the parabolic fits better for hybrid use. Also it has a more professional aesthetic to trick clients with 😂
Good honest review. I too was on the fence of getting a Deep para but after watching this I don't think I need one. I've got the Glow 45 degree long throw if I need to concentrate my light. Thanks for the video!
In hindsight @Edgar Cabrera I likely wouldn't have ordered as many deep para's as I did if I knew this info back then. Sure, the light spread is a little smoother with the deep para but I really haven't noticed the difference much in real world use versus aiming it at a cinderblock wall. Thanks for stopping by!
@Photography by Dash I definitely enjoy using mine, I use it all the time, but it's heavy especially if you boom it. I'm likely going to buy a 48" octa for times when I'm outdoors and need something lighter and more portable.
i got a broncolor 222 recently. with the diffuser it is like an octa, probably with no hotspot if you defocus. without a diffuser i have to learn how to use it. if you defocus all the light is on the outer edges of the para so it is a bit weird to use. especially if you shoot on an angle.
I purchased the para 133, during their annual Sale and love it!!! But I also bought the move 1200, I think it’s a great mix. Profoto doesn’t work to well with it.
Very interesting. I think where things become interesting is when you introduce fresnel lenses into the equation , especially larger ones that are massive that would cover the entire diameter of the modifier. Crazy these don’t exist as they would significantly reduce spill and maintain power output. However…. I do wonder how much light is attenuated as a result of the reflections inside the modifier and as distance increases. Dan Rojas of Green Power Science made one softbox using a rectangular TV fresnel- the science checks out- and the results were stunning.
Well, there's definitely a noticeable difference in light pattern, quality, and softness when using true parabolic modifiers, especially ones with the movable rod, so I'm sure adding a fresnel to the mix would have a noticeable difference as well.
You should have tried it with the grid. That greatly reduces the outer spread, creating a more directed beam forming light. If you wanted a beam then use a grid. That's what they're for
I think you just commented to make yourself feel good @Kevr0 because the comparison in this video wasn't about trying to reduce the beam of light, it was comparing two equally-sized modifiers.
@kennypringle4580 I like that you use your modifiers in different variations and actually put thought into it, instead of just doing what the internet says you should do, haha.
They definitely do the job @Darrin Lalla. I've come to use mine in situations where my modifier may get messed up as I won't care about one of my deep para's getting damaged lol.
You're most welcome @rolansilvajr1. That was my exact intention when I made this video, to inform people so they can be in a better position to make their decision on whether or not to purchase a deep para.
You really need to link the video you reference in your comments, and be more specific about how it’s used. Karl’s video is about “parabolic softboxes”, which means the shape and depth of the modifier is based on a parabola to reflect light in a linear output, but then there is diffusion added. If the diffusion did it’s job perfectly the direction of light wouldn’t matter, which is why a parabolic softbox makes no sense, because the same light can be achieved with a much shallower unit. As for your tests (and those of hundreds of others), please understand what you are testing. When comparing softboxes (modifiers using diffusion) it’s the area of the modifier that counts, not the diameter. Yes, the radius only went up 1.5”, but the surface area is significantly different. All of these lighting tests on RU-vid are like people claiming that gravity isn’t a constant and trying to show it by dropping objects. Light modifiers aren’t that complicated, output patterns and power losses can easily be figured out using ray tracing algorithms. If you want to show that your lights do something other than what physics dictates, you’re going to have to come up with better proof.
Some commenters are pretentious a-holes with nothing better to do than watch RU-vid videos and post long-winded, useless responses. I’m sorry you live such a useless life that you would watch hundreds of RU-vid videos just to validate your OPINIONS. For the record, I don’t need to do anything. This is my channel, I’ll post what a want, type what I want, say what I want. It never fails even when you say a test isn’t scientific some unhappy soul as yourself still feels the need to vomit in the comments. You think us RU-vidrs are useless, go do something more productive with your life than watching us and complaining. I usually don’t respond much to these types of comments but I had time today. Respectfully, kiss my a$$ Ed.
Shooting outside, i think the Glow ParaSnap is definitely the way to go. I did think the parabolic might act like a long throw reflector and therefore increase the light output although it did look a bit brighter. Great video as alway brother!!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥
I’ll have to test to see if the deep para throws light further, in usage I don’t know that I’ve seen that, but I haven’t paid much attention. I appreciate you commenting and making me think. 🙂
@babajide orisabiyi I didn't say he said it, I said "essentially"; please look up what that word means in the context of how I used it. Side note, by starting a video with "parabolic softboxes...what a load of marketing bullsh*t" and having "save yourself time, frustration, & money!" on the video thumbnail ... I stand behind my use of saying "essentially a waste of money". :-)
Very well done!! this shows exactly that with diffusion, it really doesn't matter how deep you modifier is, the light spread once the light passes through last layer of diffusion will be the same. Excellent display! This test also showed how the outer shape of the modifier will influence shape of falloff. So takeaway is, if you did want to use a modifier with no diffusion, or single layer of internal diffusion... then depth of modfier will have an influence of spread of light. However, if you always use outer diffusion material, then there is negligible difference, and for ease of use, it would be best to use a more compact style. Thanks Anthony
Hello, maybe you will be able to advise me: I am looking for a modifier that will give me a wide, slightly contrasting light. I tested parabolic umbrellas (unfortunately I will not fit a real parabola in my) and the light was too contrasting, and I do not know if putting a diffuser on such an umbrella would make it equal to a softbox. is it better to buy a larger softbox? I'm making (amateur)fashion/ portrait photos of the whole character
@Adam B let's dive into this a little bit, what causes contrast in lighting? Specularity and hardness, and both of those things are caused by either small or low-diffused light sources. I personally think an umbrella with a sock (diffusion material over the opening of the umbrella) provides a LOT of flexibility (and portability) in achieving a contrasty look. Silver interior modifiers will also help to add a little punch. The umbrellas I have are great at providing a punchy light even when using them with a sock. Something like this (www.adorama.com/gluel41s.html) would be great at achieving the look you're describing. Can you provide me some sample photos of what you've tested thus far?
thanks for taking the time to do this testing. i do think you should have said more about how a deep para is by definition ADJUSTABLE and when it's not (as is the case for all the cheap ones trying to capitalize on the word "para"), they are simply heavier softboxes. period. similar to how the word "beauty dish" has now been applied to softboxes, as they are not true beauty dishes that throw hard lighting. at least in this case they are usually lighter than a real beauty dish :-). i think the key point to all this is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. there are NO "do everything" modifiers, no matter what the company decides to call them :-)
@hdrsmit I appreciate your comment. The intent of my video wasn't really to outline the specifics of either modifier, it was specifically to look at the quality of light from the two, because I bought deep para's with the thought that the light would be more directional and smaller spread. Nonetheless, I welcome feedback like this.
There are many factors related to these two softboxes. I am lighting engineer by profession and photographer by hobbiest. It is not possible to explain all things in small duration. There is technically and scientifically difference in both designs.
I do feel like the deep parabolic has a better controlled light spread. The octabox feels like it has a hot spot. The difference is small though and maybe not worth the size disadvantage.
There absolutely are some minor differences @Andreas Hoffmann but like you mentioned, the size and weight still makes the deep para a bad option most times for me. In studio - no problems at all, on location - that deep para is way more headache than it's worth!
