Does anyone have any experience with the Larson reflectasol reflectors? I love shooting through an umbrella but the convex shape tends to cause some flare problems. I can shoot through a diffusion disc but then I need to use two lightstands, one for the light and one to hold the diffusion disc. The Larson looks like the perfect solution since it's essentially a flat umbrella that minimizes flare and can be mounted to just one stand.
Also, when used as a reflector it is self-supporting when placed on the ground and the angle can be easily adjusted when mounted to a lightstand.
I currently use a Scrim Jim panel as my diffuser/reflector but I'm thinking the Larson (42") may be the way to go.
They are well built (I've had mine for over 30 years) and convenient because they fold like umbrellas. On the ones I have the shaft has joint just below point where the ribs hit the shaft when the reflector. If you look at the reflector on the right, note the angle of the shaft relative to the angle of the flat surface. That design was due to the fact it takes quite a bit of force to stretch the panel flat and angling the shaft was a simple but effective way to lock it fullly open. There is also a small thumb screw for holding them partially closed as in the second shot.
I've never used them for shoot through. A concern I'd have shooting through them is that the ribs are thicker than those of a regular umbrella and the fact there are only four of them might create an odd looking catchlight.
Thanks. So if I use it as a reflector (flat), the shaft can't be straight? (like it is in the 2nd photo where you're using it as a bounce).
They look like they'd work better than a collapsible light disc, set up just as quickly, and they would fit in my regular lighting case. Plus since they're square you're getting a full 42x42" reflective surface as opposed to the circular discs that have less actual surface area.
I'm not sure about the shaft on current models - mine are 30 years old. But the bend isn't really a problem in terms of mounting it on a stand with a clamp.
In terms of area a circle of equal size (radius vs diagonal center/corner) has more effective area: 40in x 40in = 1, 600 sq. in. But the diagonal distance from center to corner is 28.28in. A circle with the same 28.28" radius would have an area of 2,513 square inches. (pi * r^2)
Also diffusion is cause by the number of different directions light comes from relative to the object creating the shadows. A circular diffuser causes light to come from more directions, is in that sense it should be more diffuse and omni-directional than a square or rectangular one of similar physical dimensions, center to edge/corner. But in practical use you would typically with either shape you'd use the size / distance which produced the desired effect. For example, I've got two different size silver Larsons so I can choose based on whether I want overall or more targeted fill.
Thanks. I don't have the math background to argue whether or not your math is correct. But as a practical matter, I know that if I put a circle that has a 42" diameter (edge to opposite edge) on top of a square that has a 42" diameter (edge to opposite edge), there is a useable surface area (the corners) on the square that is not there on the circle. This is why I use a square gobo to block overhead light instead of a circular gobo, because the square blocks light at the corners that would not have been blocked by the circle.
Thanks for your explanation though. I'm just a simple guy who prefers to keep things simple and use what works best, whether or not the math/physics agree with me!
You can put a circle in a square or a square in a circle. My comparison is based on the diagonal, representing the length of the ribs for both when folded, assuming that length is the same.
So if you look at it from the standpoint of getting the most diffusion from the most compact reflector in terms of storage length and ease of transport circle beats a square.
I'm also a fan of Reflectasol. I've got, umm...eight of them, a couple that I've had--nearly thirty years.
They are the most versatile of any kind of umbrella/reflector, with interchangeable fabrics (black, translucent white, solid white, silver, super silver, gold, super gold) that can be removed and dry cleaned. The ribs are quite robust u-channel aluminum.
They fold more compactly than any other reflector--and they fold simply, not with any twist-o-flex magician's tricks.
They are also flat, flat flat, never turning into potato chips.
The downside is that they're pricey purchased new, but they're so sturdy that you can usually find very nice bargains on eBay.
Thanks, RD. I'm leaning heavily toward replacing my scrim jims with them, except I'll keep one SJ for suspending over my subjects. Which reflective surface would work best indoors (available light) and outdoors on dim overcast days? I'm thinking the metallic silver might be best since it would reflect the most light. Or is the super silver better?
