Softbox with off-camera flash through umbrella

[jtvang125]

What type of effect would be achieved with a setup of a constant lit softbox at 45 degrees to the subject and a off-camera flash through a white umbrella on the other side? Would it be essentially the same as just having a softbox on both sides or would the burst of flash create a different effect?

I'm interested in getting into flash and studio photography and thinking of getting one of those kits (backdrop, softboxes, and umbrellas) to play around with. I already have a speedlite and wireless trigger but plan to pick up another speedlite too.

 

[tdawg]

I'm not an expert by any means...but if you have both 45 degree lights outputting the same amount of light, it should be similar to one head-on softbox on the face, though you will get light in further depth from the camera.

Now, if one side is outputting light at a lower intensity than the other, you will be able to get nice shadowing that may be more flattering.

Edit: Here, this video will do better showing lighting effects than I could describe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM7CcUrUD2g

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It sounds like you're just wondering what the difference is between a softbox and an umbrella, and also what the difference is between a steady light and a strobe. I'm not an expert, but I'm in a similar position to you insofar as I'm growing up my lighting rig and experimenting with off-camera flash with modifiers.

Softboxes seem to cast a more directional light to me, whereas an umbrella seems to have a little less directionality to it. A softbox is like standing beside an sunny window whereas an umbrella is more like standing next to some kind of large glowing sphere of light. In practice, the differences can be hard to see and mostly I just so excited by the creamy diffused light of either modifier that I dont really care too much about the differences.

As far as a steady light vs a strobe, it seems to me the primary advantage of the former to the latter is the rate at which you can take your pictures continuously because steady lights do not have recycle times. Steady lights make the capture process more like dealing with ambient light, from an operational standpoint. It seems that strobes are a bit more portable for going on location, though.

In the interest of full disclosure, my lighting rig only consists of the following:

SB-800
SB-600
Phottix Ares Transmitter and Receivers
Cheap 10" square softbox attachment
DIY lightsphere made from take out soup container
Full set of color and correction gels
Windshield sun shade that I can use as a reflector.

I'm on the cusp of acquiring some light stands and umbrellas and have been wondering about softboxes vs umbrellas myself. It seems like umbrellas can be a bit more versatile so I plan to start with one or two of those and then maybe add a larger softbox down the line. Luckily all of this gear seems really cheap compared to the actual camera hardware.

 

[NAC]

A flash is much more powerful than any steady light. Indeed - turn on as many lights as you want and fire a flash and you'll see it. For still photography, a flash can freeze movement if it is the majority of the light, but will only highlight it if it is not. So for example, if take a long exposure, and reduce the power of the flash a lot, and the subject is moving - say jumping - then you can see the blur of the movement, but when the flash fires the subject is fairly clear.

You can use a steady light or a flash with either a softbox or umbrella. An umbrella is generally cheaper and lighter in weight than an equivalent size softbox. For the same size, the result of either should be pretty darn similar. I suppose a softbox will have clear rectangles in reflective surfaces (eyes) whereas an umbrella is round.

I'd recommend you read The Strobist 101 and 102:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2016/07/lighting-102-introduction.html

Cool! I just learned that 102 was re-written, I'm gonna read it. And 103 will come out soon!

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Yeah, a strobe is much much brighter than a steady light -- so you will ned some combo of higher ISO, slower shutter speed, or wider aperture to get the same shot with a steady light that you would with a strobe. Using both in the same setup would require either turning the strobe way down (like 1/64 or 1/128... but even that might not be enough) or "dragging" the shutter (long exposure time, like 1/4 second, coupled with f/8.0 and ISO 200). I've never used steady lights, but with real studio strobes like AlienBees B800's, set up 4-6 feet away from the subject, it's not hard to get so much light that you're using f/8 or f/11, ISO 100 or even 50, 1/125s (shutter speed doesn't really matter with strobes since the strobes go off in roughly 1/5000 of a second, but you need it slow enough for your shutter to sync, which is usually 1/200 or so second on most cameras..... stopping motion isn't an issue due to the overwhelming effect of the strobe, unless you make it so much longer that ambient light starts to affect the exposure, i.e. "dragging" the shutter as described above). In other words it is like shooting outdoors on a bright sunny day.... so you can shoot low ISO, narrow aperture, and get the very highest image quality, with no DOF problems, and very sharp results even with poor lenses (f/8 to f/11 tends to be very sharp even on kit lenses).

The other thing about using strobes is that you kind of have to experiment to work out your exposure. With steady lights you can use your camera's meter to get the exposure set, like you would with natural light. Strobes, you've got to try, then tinker (either the light settings or the exposure on the camera) then try again then tinker again. Before long you'll know what settings work well together, but when you're trying something new you've got to experiment and (which I find to be part of the joy of photography). (Unless you're using all E-TTL strobes -- which I don't really recommend.)

As for a softbox vs. an umbrella -- a good softbox is designed to be very even and yes, somewhat more directional light. It's like having a north-facing window with light white curtains, or shooting on a cloudy day -- if the subject is close to the softbox (like the softbox is just out of frame, maybe 1 foot from the subject) then they will be illuminated very evenly. A shoot-through umbrella (or a cheap softbox) will show a "hot spot" where the light is stronger, and then fade out from there. One big plus of a softbox is that you can add a honeycomb grid over the front which will make the light even more directional. This is great when you want to control the light in your studio and just have it on your subject while leaving the background dark. An umbrella will pretty much diffuse the light everywhere and you will have trouble controlling the light falling on the background.

 

[CuriousMike]

I cast shadows on backgrounds when using a flash thru an umbrella.

What am I doing wrong?

If I have a white background, there will be a shadow cast when I shoot a flash thru my umbrella.

If I have a redwood tree as a background, there will be a shadow cast when I shoot a flash thru my umbrella.

I've played with ( but follow no formula )
- distance of umbrella + flash to subject
- angle of umbrella
- height of umbrella
- flash power

I imagine the solution is a combination of all - but I can't seem to find it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I cast shadows on backgrounds when using a flash thru an umbrella.

What am I doing wrong?

If I have a white background, there will be a shadow cast when I shoot a flash thru my umbrella.

If I have a redwood tree as a background, there will be a shadow cast when I shoot a flash thru my umbrella.

I've played with ( but follow no formula )
- distance of umbrella + flash to subject
- angle of umbrella
- height of umbrella
- flash power

I imagine the solution is a combination of all - but I can't seem to find it.

Can you explain a bit more about the nature/character of the shadows you're casting? Maybe post an example.

My thought is that umbrellas do not diffuse the light evenly, and they'll still stay hot in the center while falling off on the way to the edge. This would have the effect of softening the shadows as compared to bare flash, but certainly not eliminating them.

It might help to look at your angles more closely and take care to cast your shadows outside the frame as much as you can. Or set a second flash to fill in the shadows in the background.

 

[CuriousMike]

@Cerpin Taxt - @work, will post examples when I'm home.

I do have a second flash that I've considered setting up just to throw some fill light in the background in hopes to minimizing the shadows.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

You shouldn't really have the subject between the light and the background. The location of the main light in traditional "Rembrandt Lighting" is 45 degrees offset to the side from camera to the subject, and raised 45 degrees up from the subject. So the subject isn't really between the light and the background.

Really though the key is distance from background to subject. If the subject is very close to the background then some shadows will be unavoidable without a separate background light behind the subject, aimed at the background. If the subject is at least 3-5 feet away then you should be able to get the light aligned so that the shadows fall on the ground or at least out of the frame.

Lastly, the more diffuse the light source, the less perceptible or "hard" the shadows will be. I would try bouncing off the umbrella rather than shooting through the umbrella. This should create a more diffuse, effectively bigger light source, which should give a nice soft, barely perceptible shadow. When shooting through an umbrella, the intensity and falloff of the light is still largely determined by the shape of the light coming out of the strobe in the first place.

 

[Paladin3]

Bounce your strobe off the biggest umbrella you have and get it as close to the subject as possible for softer shadows. Make sure your strobe is set as wide as possible shooting into the umbrella. You really want to spread that light out for as defused an effect as possible.

Light doesn't get soft by passing through an umbrella, it gets softer and more defused by being spread out and reflecting off a larger surface. The closer the umbrella is to the subject the larger its relative size compared to the subject and the more you get that wrap around lighting with soft shadows.

This is a quick portrait done with a single speedlight bounced up and over my left shoulder in a relatively dark room. The light is reflecting off the corner of the room where two walls meet the ceiling, effectively acting like a giant umbrella. It's 1/250, f5.6 @ ISO 800 with the flash doing all the work because the room is 4-5 stops darker than that.

The shadows are pretty defused for a quick and dirty, one-strobe shot. If I had a second light I would probably put it behind and off to the side of the subject for a little back/hair lighting, but I shoot these portraits in about 60 seconds with kids moving all over so using just the one on-camera speedlight bounced really keeps things simple.

EDIT: And what Slash said, too.