Hello - I've been using Westcott Octabox for a while, I'm planning to buy another softbox. I've been checking online which I come across rectangular box as well. Which one gives most best results, I've seen ppl using Octa and rectangular together for indoor and outdoor shoots. Any thoughts/suggestions pls?
Have been using (rectangular) softboxes since studio flash became more widely available (and affordable) since the early 80's.
Main 'complaint' about the rectangular shape was the rectangular reflection of the softbox in the eye(s) of model/people. The rectangular shape wasn't that much of a problem shooting product though.
Nowadays octoboxes are all the rage and considered next to mandatory by many (in particular beginner) photographers, however without any questioning why.
IMO and IMX softboxes, rectangular of octo, are way overrated.
The way light is being shaped and directed by them (more aimed into one specific direction) makes them great for shooting when absolute control of the light is demanded, eg (and in particular) for product shoots.
That characteristic however makes them far less ideal for people/portraits, as the mainly aimed into one direction tends to exposed skin blemishes and irregularities.
To counter that effect nowadays only too often extra layers of diffusion screens are placed in front of the (predominantly) used octoboxes.
While that does soften the result, the thus highly diffused and very low contrast light thus created also robs light of its main characteristic, i.e. creating shapes by way of light and shadows, which basically is in contradiction with the essence of photography (photography after all literally means drawing with light, see eg Rembrandt or Carravagio)
While I do have softboxes of varies shapes and sizes among my studio lighting equipment, for shooting people /portraits I as a rule use umbrellas, depending ton the result wanted of different sizes and fabric (white, silver, shoot trough of reflective).
Contrary to softboxes umbrellas reflect light in basically all directions (for that reason often called ligtbombs), thus far less exposing irregulariies and/or skin blemishes, allowing much less need for 'creative' retouch afterwards with eg Portrait Por and the likes.
So to answer the question asked, rectangular or octobox, you need to ask yourself : product or people?
With product it is less important, eg with very reflective objects like eg glass a rectangular shape is less distracting then an octobox shape reflection.
For people/portraits an octobox gives a considered more pleasing round reflection vs a rectangular softbox.
That said, if you eg shoot with daylight coming through windows, you also inevitably have rectangular reflections of those windows in the eys of the subjects.
And of course nowadays huge often rectangular diffusion screens in combination with spots (thus creating highly diffused but still very much aimed into one direction light, similar to the lighting on film sets) tend to be used more and more often
Depends on what you want to shoot and what effect you want to put across. The new wave of inexpensive, accessible octas are actually quite good. Seems like you’re set in that regard. Apart from the different catchlight, which may or may not be a concern for you, generally speaking the reason people use a rectangular softbox is in part to control direction and spill. Several models of rectangular softboxes, stripboxes included, have an inset diffusion, with a 2-3” rim at the edge, providing some “spill kill”. They’re great as more controlled lights, like rim/edge. They’re great for still life.
To me the softbox has the some advantage when trying to feather a light, but agree the round catchlights are more appealing. I do primarily shoot with octas and umbrellas these days, but still love the look of a 4x6 on some portraits.
I’ve never thought of softboxes as good sources for feathering, at least not the inset softboxes I mentioned above. But if you’re working with a rimless softbox, then sure, they’d be great. I’m usually feathering with a Photek, or similar indirect/diffused source.
FWIW just related to this thread, I think the need for round catchlights is overstated, and it’s likely that most of the people making noise about this are photographers to other photographers, and people being photographed couldn’t care to notice.
MohanVinukonda wrote:
Hello - I've been using Westcott Octabox for a while, I'm planning to buy another softbox. I've been checking online which I come across rectangular box as well. Which one gives most best results, I've seen ppl using Octa and rectangular together for indoor and outdoor shoots. Any thoughts/suggestions pls?
Mohan, there are no magic bullets when it comes to modifiers.
I have used octas, squares and umbrellas. I'm currently using octas with umbrellas as the backlights.
Though the octas are ok, I do miss the amount of light the squares put out from top to bottom. When feathering the squares are way better for full length as they have a straight leading edge and a wide angle as opposed to light fall-off from the rounded corners.
Also octas are way heavier, especially front heavy as they're way deeper and hence the angle of light put out is much narrower.
If using outdoors an octa is really unwieldy and needs a ton of weight on the base if free-standing.
I too feel as has been said that round catchlights are WAY over rated. I've mixed them and am even ok with both a round and square in the same eye. Extremely round catchlights don't look natural to me as only studio lighting produces that.
If your studio is on the smallish side then big octas are pretty hard to squeeze in without getting them in the picture since they stick way out from the stands.
I think ultimately, if they are always set up then a good rectangular is the best way to go. The octas always have a bit of a concentrated beauty dish look. Most octas today collapse umbrella style for transport so are next to umbrellas for ease of transport!
They can both produce a beautiful light if used well!!!
John
To be frank, though, clients usually don't care about the minor differences between different kinds of light diffusion methods, and don't care about the shapes of catch lights if they are at least shaped organically, that is, a single simple rectangle (like a window) or circle (like the sun). Artificially shaped catch lights (rings, bars, multiple spots) may catch their attention, and that may be positive or negative.
I'm usually attempting to simulate large windows in my portraits, so I personally prefer a large rectangular soft boxes for their catch lights, the feathering capability of the brand I use, and its fairly flat depth for its size.
The biggest difference between them is the shape of the catchlights. Different models, different materials, different manufacturers will have slightly different contrasts. You'll have to adjust subject distance and diffusion layer(s) to get a lighting quality you like. This applies whether you are shooting portraits or product. Pick a model that has sturdy hardware, especially if you are setting up and taking down often. Size, subject distance and the style in which you use them will produce much greater lighting variation than octa vs rectangular. Softboxes in general are more efficient than umbrellas and will make the most out of limited power since all the light is going toward the subject. However, you can make beautiful light from any of these products with care and practice. It's really a matter of individual preference, what you're comfortable with, what you like.
JohnSil wrote:
... Extremely round catchlights don't look natural to me as only studio lighting produces that.
Totally agree. 20 years ago I used to think a circular light source evoked the sun. In real life, the sun creates a mere pinprick of a catchlight. Not that artifical looks are wrong artistically, of course. An ordinary retangular SB is closer to a relatable source (window), and you can take it further with a frame silhouette and some drapery.
That said, I almost always use a diffusion panel that combines the circular and rectangular schemes. The effect simulates hazy sunlight through a window:
MSE 2'x3' frame w/ sheet of Rosco Tough Rolux, Magnum dish behind.
I like brolly boxes which by their design end up being round because they set up quickly, they're cheap, and they're way more portable than a softbox of similar size.
I would think in a studio though, especially a small studio, rectangular is more versatile. You can better simulate window light, they seem ideal for full body shots, you can light a background with better control of spill onto subject, you can get them closer the the ceiling or corners than something round, Etc. I would think rectangular makes slightly more sense.
Maybe people talk about catchlights they way they talk about quality of bocah?...it's more something for photographers to obsess about than something the subject notices.
I have both rectangular/square and octagonal, but in the studio I'm tending to use the octagonal more because I personally like the catchlights better. A square catchlight just isn't that appealing to me in a live person's eye. I do still take and use the square more for work outside the studio, because my octagonal soft boxes don't fold well. If the outside work picks up I will likely buy a couple of octagonal that fold easier. There is a time and place for both and it depends more on what is being shot as to which is better for that shot.
In over forty years of shooting professionally, I've never once had a client, or one of the hundreds of famous musicians tell me they didn't like the shape of the catch light in the eyes. Never. Not once. Ever. No one cares about that shit. Just make the light work for you but more importantly, get the emotion you're looking for out of your subject. ALL of my most well known images were done with rectangular soft boxes, except one or two I used a Balcar 18" dish reflector. Rather than argue about the shape of a catch light, argue about whether it's a great photo or not, and why.
jlafferty wrote:
Only 40 years though. It’s right around the corner. Any day now you’ll get a flood of complaints
Yeah. I'm waiting. Actually I have used the wonderful true parabolic Balcar umbrellas quite a bit as well as they are a bit more directional and harder, but then you get those damned umbrella reflections, which can be used as a stylistic expression if you make them so obviously on purpose - y'know, like 1970's glamour or 1960's Antonioni ala Blowout.
I love the rectangular to control the direction and spill of the light, but use the octabox when I plan for it to result in a catchlight. I photograph animals (canines mostly), and it can be difficult to control their head position sometimes... which can result in 2 different shapes as catchlights (which makes me queasy but non-photographers don't say anything about it).
