I prefer to do most products shots with a 3-light setup, instead of a tent. Better control, less shadows, etc.
My current modifier setup is pretty dismal, and I want to add a medium sized unit that has a Bowens mount.
I was going to get a 24" softbox, but I've always wanted to have a beauty dish, so I'm wondering if there's any reason not to use that instead? (And then of course I'd have one for the occasional head shot.)
It seems to me that if anything, the beauty dish would be preferable as they supposedly give better contrast.
I don't see any reason why it won't work. I'd rent a Mola Demi or Profoto dish before committing to it first. They can get rather expensive once you add a grid and case.
Yeah, that Mola is awfully expensive. - but you only live once!
I'm also considering a 24" - 32" deep parabolic, like perhaps the Phottix Raja. Any thoughts on how they would compare, for both my main use AND portrait shots? (head & torso)
There is a reason rectangular soft boxes are used for product work, I've been shooting it for @30 years and own both round and rectangular. Round light sources are not the best option for lighting product as they lack the same control as a square or rectangle. Feathering from a soft box creates a nice edge that one can use to diminish a background or foreground whereas a round source has more challenges to create that edge.
JBPhotog wrote:
There is a reason rectangular soft boxes are used for product work, I've been shooting it for @30 years and own both round and rectangular. Round light sources are not the best option for lighting product as they lack the same control as a square or rectangle. Feathering from a soft box creates a nice edge that one can use to diminish a background or foreground whereas a round source has more challenges to create that edge.
100% agree, especially with highly reflective objects. My go to modifiers are my 6x6 scrim panel (got an amazing deal on a matthews on with silk), 2x3, 1x3 and 1x4 strips. Also snoots, grids, and a sheet of foamcore to make various sizes of bounce cards.
However, if one just wants to create a shadowless images for amazon and the like, a typical cheap light tent is not a bad investment.
I would not recommend a beauty dish for product work. They have a somewhat narrow range where the light goes from a soft glow to more of a hard light, especially as you transition from the center to the edge of the modifier relative to the subject. They're fantastic for portraits if you like that punchy yet still soft light they produce, but if you're just throwing a diffusion cloth over it you might as well just get a softbox.
I'm often shooting the shiny stuff, and a white BD makes fine tabletop light. I own a grid but never use it: flagging takes care of light forming. The important BD accessory is the opal-glass diffuser which gets rid of that damn donut! The BD specular is then a pretty smooth circle, and the light pattern is quite attractive:
For a super-smooth specular, I interpose a diffusion panel close to the BD.
rico wrote:
I'm often shooting the shiny stuff, and a white BD makes fine tabletop light. I own a grid but never use it: flagging takes care of light forming. The important BD accessory is the opal-glass diffuser which gets rid of that damn donut! The BD specular is then a pretty smooth circle, and the light pattern is quite attractive:
For a super-smooth specular, I interpose a diffusion panel close to the BD.
No offence intended but this example is not what one would call a commercial product shot. Is it a bunch of products on a table, yes. Are they lit in an appropriate manner for advertising, no.
One can light any product with a bare speed light but that hardly qualifies it as a product shot meeting the strict criteria to satisfy commercial clients in 99.99% of the assignments.
JBPhotog wrote:
No offence intended but this example is not what one would call a commercial product shot. Is it a bunch of products on a table, yes. Are they lit in an appropriate manner for advertising, no.
One can light any product with a bare speed light but that hardly qualifies it as a product shot meeting the strict criteria to satisfy commercial clients in 99.99% of the assignments.
The example he posted is likely just to show how a beauty dish highlight looks with a variety of objects, with varying degrees of reflectivity/matte vs glossy as well as demonstrate shadow transition, and not intended as an example of a final complete client image. One could post up a final image with composited layers of various modifiers, but that would defeat the purpose of showing what a specific modifier looks like on objects.
And lighting in an "appropriate manner for advertising" is completely dependent on the client brief.
JBPhotog wrote:
No offence intended but this example is not what one would call a commercial product shot. Is it a bunch of products on a table, yes. Are they lit in an appropriate manner for advertising, no.
One can light any product with a bare speed light but that hardly qualifies it as a product shot meeting the strict criteria to satisfy commercial clients in 99.99% of the assignments.
I see your point, but I'm not doing this for pro advertising. (I should have made that clear.) Just personal use, Ebay sales, etc.
Plus it was a general question on how a BD would look . (contrast, shadows, highlights, etc.) So for me, Rico's post was extremely helpful.
Regardless, I'm curious what would be most important for a pro advertising shot that is missing in his example.
A different background?
JBPhotog wrote:
There is a reason rectangular soft boxes are used for product work, I've been shooting it for @30 years and own both round and rectangular. Round light sources are not the best option for lighting product as they lack the same control as a square or rectangle. Feathering from a soft box creates a nice edge that one can use to diminish a background or foreground whereas a round source has more challenges to create that edge.
Thanks, JB.
I don't quite understand this, but I believe you know what you're saying.
I'm not a big fan of rectangular softboxes in general. OK, smallish ones are not expensive, but it's more stuff on the shelf.
Would it be a mistake to use a smallish octa? (Or deep parabolic) That still give a straight edge, so some control.
Or suppose I put a black rectangular border over the front of a BD? Is that edge all that's important?
sungphoto wrote:
I think you may be misinterpreting @rico@'s post.
The example he posted is likely just to show how a beauty dish highlight looks with a variety of objects, with varying degrees of reflectivity/matte vs glossy as well as demonstrate shadow transition, and not intended as an example of a final complete client image. One could post up a final image with composited layers of various modifiers, but that would defeat the purpose of showing what a specific modifier looks like on objects.
And lighting in an "appropriate manner for advertising" is completely dependent on the client brief.
Of course it is, I've been doing for a few decades for national brands. It is the lack of control one has with a BD vs a rectangular modifier my point was directed at.
I don't quite understand this, but I believe you know what you're saying.
I'm not a big fan of rectangular softboxes in general. OK, smallish ones are not expensive, but it's more stuff on the shelf.
Would it be a mistake to use a smallish octa? (Or deep parabolic) That still give a straight edge, so some control.
Or suppose I put a black rectangular border over the front of a BD? Is that edge all that's important?
The issue with a round modifier is the fall off measured from the centre to the round edge that is more challenging to control. If you want to flag off the edges so you essentially have a strip light, then sure, but a purpose built strip light is far more useful and way less bulky and cumbersome.
Deep parabolics can be quite specular and most these days are silver interior which creates stepped shadows unless you diffuse them internally and externally with the two layers of diffusion. And some diffusion is so thin one can still see the stepping in the shadows, depending on brand. You could use a deep parabolic with a scrim in between the product and modifier, but again, you are just creating a square or rectangular soft box.
You said it was just for personal and eBay items, so a head with a standard reflector bouncing off white cards/foam board would also work and save you the money you want for a BD light source for other uses.
sungphoto wrote:
One could post up a final image with composited layers of various modifiers, but that would defeat the purpose of showing what a specific modifier looks like on objects.
Thanks, Sung, that was exactly my purpose. Sometimes a BD is exactly what is required, for example in the mirror reflection off sunglasses. Sometimes, glossy surfaces like apples look attractive with a circular blob of a specular. And sometimes the limited depth-of-light from a close-in BD serves the mood. Even depth-of-light issues are moot if the BD is used overhead. The considerable light spray from a white BD either goes off into space, is flagged, or is redirected back onto the table for fill and accent purposes. Of course, I have other fixtures like fresnels and striplights, plus heaps of dishes and panels, to execute my lighting schema.
In many cases I eschew any dish, including BD, for the simplicity of a bare head:
Totally, I use bare heads quite often for my product work too - especially with gems where you sometimes need a nice ultra specular light to make them sparkle. As an aside, every time you post that pic of one your Matthews rollers it makes me want to swap out my Avenger rollers for them..
More often than not though (especially for jewelry), I just use one head with a 2x3 softbox and use a variety of reflectors, flags, mirrors, etc to achieve the look I want. For a flat shadowlesss image I use two 1x3 or 1x4 strips, and if I want a pure white background I light it separately.
It’s easy to get super complex with lighting, but I personally prefer to approach product work similarly to how I photograph people - ie lighting relatively simply for mood and tonality rather than specific effects. There isn’t a right or wrong solution - one of my commercial photog friends that’s done work for Coca Cola and the like primarily uses one hard light.
For the OP, I think it’s best to start with images you’d like to reproduce as there are (just like other genres of photography) many different styles one can approach product photography and none of them is necessarily “correct”. For example your average volume widget client that just wants pleasant looking images of every day objects for e-commerce/Amazon will want something different stylistically than a handmade jewelry maker that does small batches etc etc
rico wrote:
Thanks, Sung, that was exactly my purpose. Sometimes a BD is exactly what is required, for example in the mirror reflection off sunglasses. Sometimes, glossy surfaces like apples look attractive with a circular blob of a specular. And sometimes the limited depth-of-light from a close-in BD serves the mood. Even depth-of-light issues are moot if the BD is used overhead. The considerable light spray from a white BD either goes off into space, is flagged, or is redirected back onto the table for fill and accent purposes. Of course, I have other fixtures like fresnels and striplights, plus heaps of dishes and panels, to execute my lighting schema.
In many cases I eschew any dish, including BD, for the simplicity of a bare head:
Could always get the sock for the dish if you need to soften the light more and be more softbox like. Kill two birds with one stone (sorta). Also, if you're looking at the Mola Demi but on a budget, consider the Speedotron dish. Very similar output, but ~$160 iirc.
tdlavigne wrote:
Could always get the sock for the dish if you need to soften the light more and be more softbox like. Kill two birds with one stone (sorta). Also, if you're looking at the Mola Demi but on a budget, consider the Speedotron dish. Very similar output, but ~$160 iirc.
I think if you're going to get a beauty dish only to put a diffusion on it, you might as well just get a softbox though. Beauty dishes are also not the most portable modifier - mine pretty much always stays in my home studio.
The adorama glow boxes are a great value based on a buddy who's picked a couple of their strip boxes. Probably aren't as durable as the more expensive modifiers, but for occasional use they're totally fine.
I think it's perfectly fine to use a BD for still life. Generally you use it when you want to better control contrast in a way a softbox can't, and you do this by pairing it with a sheet of diffusion - either frost or milk plexi - moving the BD closer to the diffusion (more contrast), or further away. I've seen some really beautiful still life work done with either a BD or a Magnum in this way. It is true that a softbox is a more universally applicable modifier, equally suited to a range of subjects... but a BD can really sing in skilled hands...
Sometimes a BD is exactly what is required, for example in the mirror reflection off sunglasses. Sometimes, glossy surfaces like apples look attractive with a circular blob of a specular. And sometimes the limited depth-of-light from a close-in BD serves the mood. Even depth-of-light issues are moot if the BD is used overhead. The considerable light spray from a white BD either goes off into space, is flagged, or is redirected back onto the table for fill and accent purposes. Of course, I have other fixtures like fresnels and striplights, plus heaps of dishes and panels, to execute my lighting schema.