Hi Guys, thanks for watching this video. As this video seems to be very popular many of the same questions keep coming up which I’ve summarised below: 1. Yes I love parabolic reflectors, that was the subject of a recent video kzread.info/dash/bejne/mJmhpNyOaZDOiKw.html - I use them all the time, but this video is about something entirely different - please watch it through if you have time. 2. I’m very happy that 95% of you understand physics, but for the 5% that don’t a parabolic light is supposed to collimate light in parallel lines so that it throws it very efficiently out of the front of the modifier in a similar way to fresnel lens (think lighthouse). To do that the light has to bounce off of the silver internal walls from a particular point called the focus point, where the light needs to be. But when light passes through semi opaque diffusion material such as white semi opaque fabric in a softbox then that light scatters in all directions. In fact, in good softbox design, it is diffused twice - first at the internal diffusion and then again through the front material. In doing so the light loses all of its collimated properties that were induced by the deep or parabolic design and the light is now non directional (other than the direction it is facing) and the light will be emitted at all angles unless something blocks its path such as a grid or the edges of the softbox. The light will be strongest in the way it is facing and within the area of its diameter. 3. If there was only one layer of very weak diffusion at the front it is possible to retain some of the collimation properties, but not with two medium to strong layers of diffusion material. The purpose of good softboxes is to create an evenly uniformly illuminated large surface of light. When that is achieved you have a good softbox. The light that then comes out from that front surface, whether the softbox is of deep design or shallow design, will be the same apart from efficiency of exposure, which can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the power. There is no longer any collimation and the idea that the softbox can somehow still ‘direct’ light like a parabolic reflector goes against the laws of physics. 4. For those that are able to notice subtle differences between the Octabox or the Parabolic softbox let me please explain. a) One light may be set at a slightly different power than the other as I had to change lights. b) Power and apparent size is also affected by distance and the softbox front face positions may have changed by approximately 5-10cm (2-5 inches) during the change over. c) Any actual change in exposure difference on the model to the background could be down to the fact that the parabolic softbox, although the same diameter as the Octabox it had a greater surface area. It also has a light source that is further back which would affect the intensity of light on the model relative to the background (inverse square law). d) Any small difference that people claim to see in ‘fall off’ could be down to the angle or position of the soft boxes. e) And finally if the material is not a good diffuser then the softbox may have disproportional intensity across its surface which would also yield slightly different results. 5. The purpose of this test was to prove how similar the results are given how different the designs are, which is expected as both softboxes should be producing homogenous light. If they are both producing homogenous light at the front surface then the laws of physics dictate that they will both deliver the same results and any variation in the results is purely down to position or overall sizes. If you still think light can be directed like a torch beam through diffusion, then have someone hold a torch in the dark at a piece of white paper and then hold another piece of white paper a few inches in-front of that. Then imagine how that would become even more diffused if there were silver internal sides bouncing the first diffusion light around inside too. I hope that helps you understand the physics of what’s happening and why my conclusions are that one of these modifiers is unnecessarily cumbersome and heavy unless you have a particular use for it without the diffusion material. Thanks for watching the comparisons, for those who would like me to qualify my background and experience please see the 'MY WORK' link in the description below the video.

@antpruitt

3 жыл бұрын

Loved this. I do like the round catch lights better than the octa catch light. 😄 I use these more for video lighting. Thank you again

@fg1110

3 жыл бұрын

What's your models Instagram handle?

@luciobarbanophotography5565

3 жыл бұрын

As you asked me to look at your pinned comment i will also tell my thougts on that : First of all i want to summarize that the one that makes the most clever marketing is you. The whole intension of this video is to underline that the broncolor is the only parabolic reflector. You do that by cleverly arranging your test to supress as much as possible the effect of a parabolic softbox (detailed explanations below) and also linking to your other video about parabolic reflectors where you say the alternatives to the broncolor para is renting a broncolor para. Not mentioning one real alternative and there are plenty of them. It’s like i need a car for daily use and and the only alternative to a Bentley is to rent a Bentley. But I could buy a used Toyota or what ever and maybe still end up satisfied. Sure the para is most probabely the best one out there. But its also 10x-40x more expensive than alternatives. Pointing out in such an agressiv way how nonesense it is to buy any other than the para from Broncolor underlines the fact how afraid your sponsor is that someone could actually find out that a 10x cheper thing could do almost the same job. Sure they are all different. But different does not necessary means worst. So here is how you cleverly supressed any advantage of a parabolic softbox in your video : 1. by putting the lightsource in the middle above the «model » (best position to supress the effect of different lightfalloff to the background as the background will always be lit with the lightsource pointet straight to it) 2. selecting a very limited viewing angle showing the least as possible amount of background which makes it impossible to judge the light fallof. 3. not making a test without the inner diffusor and only the front diffusor on the deep parabolic softbox. In point 3 of your comment you pointed it out correctly. Without a inner diffusor you will maintain some of the more directional characteristics of a deeper (and even parabolic) Softbox. And thats the whole sense of it. Of course, if you try desperetly to achive the same result as a normal softbox by putting also the inner diffusor in it you might just use a normal Softbox. But that is just one more option you have with the deeper parabolic softbox (turn it into a regular softbox IF YOU WANT). Althogh surprisingly it still was more directional as we can see from the slightly brighter background. Which you say is due to the inverse square law caused by the light source beeing furhter away as the parabolic softbox is deeper. Althogh this is still admitting that there is a difference it is just wrong as the frontdiffusor becomes the lightsource espescially when the inner diffusor is also applied. Applying that theory would mean that if you use a diffusor panel outdoors to diffuse direct sunlight (which is a lightsource that is 144'000’000 km away) would end up in no lightfalloff at all after the diffusing panel when dooing the math. Which ist’t the case of coarse. The diffusor becomes the lightsource and not the lightsource behind it. Its all about how the light hits that frontdiffusor, either with mostly straigth parrallel lightrays (still more directional light after the diffusor) or with lightrays coming from every angle to the frontdiffusor (much less directional light). The amount of the effect is of coarse depending on how much diffusing the frontdiffusor is eg the « half power angle » of it. 4. Not taking pictures of the frontdiffusors (which are not overexposed) to show how evenly it is lit on the regular solfbox vs. the parabolic deep one. Of coarse in the video where the diffusor is alway totally blown out it alway looks homogenous as the whole diffusor at some point gets totally white even if not beeing homogenous. So all of you out there: the real way to test how homogenous the light is on the frontdiffusor of a sofbox is to take pictures of it at minimum power where no area of the diffusor reaches total white. In your video at 2:11 you show a indirect parabolic Reflector/Softbox which is focusable. Why didn’t you used that one? Or at least as i pointed out in my comment you could have use a deflector to block the direct light of the bare bulb to turn it into a indirect (althogh not defocusable and always in fully focused positon) Parabolic reflector when you used it without any diffusor.

@luciobarbanophotography5565

3 жыл бұрын

@@VisualEducationStudio Thanks for taking your time a) Not getting payed by broncolor and considering the only alternative to a para is renting a para makes it even worst. At least you would have a good reason to tell that. b+c) No, i’m not suffering at all with any conspiracy theory syndrome and i totally believe that they went to the moon that time. So you just occaisionally made the setup the way it is not showing the effect on the background it has. Thats ok, but that means that you occaisionally just blendet out the only comparable difference between the two types what makes the comparison usless. d) No, i did not purchased any of those deep Softboxes yet besides the Elinchrom deep octa 100 which i boght not for having a more directional softbox but to have more homogenous litten frontdiffusor as it would be the case in a shallower softbox. Instead of putting me in the position of a fool try to argue for example against the fact that a shallow softbox (espescially without inner diffusor) will have a much more pronounced hotspot in the middle than a deep one. Or do you really want to tell us that a lightsource placed very close to a diffusor will light the whole diffusor equally bright as it would be by placing the lightsource much further away it ? e) Hmm… what speaks against showing the real brightness distribiution over the reflector and compare them when you’re pointing out that the main reason and qualityfactor of a softbox is to light the frontdiffusor as homogenously as possible? And yes, maybe one day i will make a video that will also show that after ONE (not two or more) diffusing material there is still remaining a certain direction of the light. f) You’re still not getting it. I totally agree that throing the light trough two sheets of diffusion will eliminate the desired effect. That’s why it would have been so important to only mount the outher diffusor without the inner one. And of coarse take pictures in a way that the effect is recognizable by showing more of the background and using the light from the side in a 45° angel for example.

@jas_bataille

3 жыл бұрын

@@luciobarbanophotography5565 The rules of soft light are as follow : 1) The bigger the source, the softer the softer the light. 2) The more diffused the source, the softer the light. 3) the ***closer*** the source, the softer the light. I know this is counter-intuitive, but yes, this is the empirical truth. Don't believe me? Take a torch light your forearm. Watch the shadow. Bring the torch up : the shadow becomes clearer. Brings the torch down : the shadow becomes blurrier. The further the light rays have to travel and the more defined they will be; hence why you get harsh light on sunny days and diffused light on overcast ones, where the light is being diffracted in all sorts of directions before reaching us. So when you say "you really want to tell us a lightsource placed very close will light equally bright as it would be ny placing the light source much away from it", the answer is : no... because it would lit *more* equally and you'd have *less* of an hotspot in the center. Period. You're concentrating the light rays further away into a narrower point with the deep "parabolic" softbox. A spotlight for stage use is often over 100 meters away from the stage, while the flood lights, or washers as we call them in the entertainment industry, are literally *on* the stage. I you cannot admit you're wrong then really there nothing that Karl nor I can do for you. If your deep octabox inspires you then sure. But if it's more directional, then it's gonna have a less homogenous output. However, on those tests the parabolic softbox gives an ever so slightly less directional result, or so one would think; but look again at the *backgrounds*. There you can see the hotspot of the parabolic softbox. This become increasingly obvious the more diffusion is removed. The results are about identical except for the hotspot in question. Why would you want that? You can light the background separately if you want.

Didn't expect this result. Thanks, Karl and to the model for her consistent professionalism.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers. Don't discount true parabolic reflectors though - kzread.info/dash/bejne/mJmhpNyOaZDOiKw.html

@createdshocked4700

3 жыл бұрын

I did

Karl the only one honest guy who tells it like it really is! Much appreciated

very interesting to see this - I have a parabolic shoot through umbrella and in my tests in close to subjects does give a nice wrapping effect compared to a similar size more flatter style umbrellas and I was happy with this option not to bother with parabolic softboxes and your super tests have now allowed me to put those out of mind!

Today I have discovered your channel, I have been watching many videos of yours, but this is the one that I really loved, because I always had this doubt if a parabolic or a softbox was better, but now I am decided to invest my money in a softbox and an umbrella, until now I'm going to start using the flash light for a family personal project, thank you very much for your help... Very good work friend. A big hug from Colombia ❤

Totally agree. For a while now our studio's go-to modifier has been our shallow 40" octobox. A few months ago we found one of our resident photographers had brought in an expensive parabolic softbox. It was a nightmare to use in a small studio, really heavy, too big to leave up when not in use but an absolute pain to pack away and set back up. It also had an octagonal 40" front with a similar diffuser and guess what, we couldn't tell the difference either! It did illuminate the backdrop a little more due to the more directional throw but this is a negative, especially in a smaller studio like ours, as we want to control the backdrop lighting separately. It now sits in a corner packed away and gathering dust.

"I have never been interested in paying crazy prices and found that I did not need A so called Parabolic modifier to achieve the same result from a good quality 48" or 60" Octabox for less that half the price. Really good review and put all the doubters to rest.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing

Just bought myself a large umbrella with white inside with a reverse mount for my monolight and diffuser before watching this video. Thank God I made the right choice. Thanks Mr Taylor for giving me and others valuable information. May God bless you and your family.

Good demo - thanks Karl! It looked like more light made it to the backdrop with the parabolic. Subtle, but noticeable, even with the diffusion on. Not that this would be an advantage in most cases.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Curtis, I think more light made it to the background just because the deep softbox had a slightly bigger surface area and also as it is deep, the actual lamp head is slightly further back, so it could be partially down to inverse square law too.

@DrRussell

9 ай бұрын

So glad you pointed this out because we need the longest possible throw of light in clinical scenarios, and as usual, you add value that cannot be found elsewhere. Thank you Curtis.

Thank you SO much for this thoughtfully done and practical comparison! I do feel that parabolics help in 'throwing' a more collimated beam of light- I shoot a lot of dancers where I ned to give them a bit of space to move and the para helps me back off a bit while still maintaining strobe power. Now for the next comparison-large 'Brolly Box' versus large Octa with diffusion- I bet they will also be very similar (and the brolly MUCH cheaper)... Thanks again!!

Excellent video! Thank you very much for making this!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

@ahmedmaher4739

3 жыл бұрын

woow, nice to see you here

@MirdjanHyle

3 жыл бұрын

Hey!! Nice to see you here!! Big fan!!

@JamesClark1991

3 жыл бұрын

The unexpected collaboration I never knew I needed 😂😂😂

@alexasuncion7718

3 жыл бұрын

Gleeeen!

Karl, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Typically the best 10 minutes of my internet usage is one of your focused videos. I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I'm an expert in the world I circle in and appreciate those in other circles. I may be new to photography, but I can appreciate excellence and wish to thank you again. You make me wish I could do an in person apprenticeship with you because I know it would be invaluable. Gracias Amigo for another excellent educational experience.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you, very kind.

Thanks for this. I was convinced by your demo. I am also looking forward to your next video on this topic.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Glad to hear it!

Thanks, just ordered a parabolic softbox. Well played, your results convinced me.

I totally agree with you on this. I have both softboxes and often wonder why I add to spend double to get the parabolic. After shooting with it for a while I noticed I prefer the octabox as my key light while I use the parabolic as fill. It all depends on what you're going for though. Definitely subscribing to your channel.

Totally makes sense! I bought a Nanlite 90cm "parabolic" soft box because I wanted a big round soft box and that is what was on offer. It's a Bowens mount so I'll be getting a more compact octa-box version when I get a 150cm version!

hehe love this guy - I was a big parabolic soft box guy when I owned a studio and my experience mostly agrees with you - for whatever benefit they gave, an umbrella often gave a similar result and a lot easier to manoeuvre and store. thanks for another great vid!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks John.

@blainecovert8374

3 жыл бұрын

Agree. Have them all, but when I want to be be light and fast on location umbrellas work great. I have a couple of small parabolics converted to leds for video where I only use the outside diffuser which also work well.

As someone who is looking to purchase their first softbox, I was truly hoping that the parabolic could do many things well and add some value instead of buying a softbox + genuine parabolic. Fortunately this video saved that decision. Ease of setup doesn't seem like an advantage either...

Great content. As everyone recommends "parabolic", i have never seen a video, which actually demonstrates the fact. Thanks for educating, because i was about to buy a "parabolic" softbox in few weeks, this content made me to rethink my decision. You saved my hard earned money, in-fact these "parabolic" softboxes are no cheaper. Looking forward for the next comparison.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks for going straight to the point! I think you summarize things very well; No waste of time. It's much appreciated nowadays, where useless long intros are made.

Love these kind of no-nonsense explanations! Makes a lot of sense to folks who are learning studio lighting. Thanks.

@VisualEducationStudio

2 жыл бұрын

Very welcome!

Great as always... can’t wait for the comparisons with other parabolics , and hope that you can get your hands on the Pixapro one.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Yes coming soon.

@RalfWeyer

3 жыл бұрын

I’m waiting for that as well. Have to admit I bought a „parabolic“ softbox due to lack of real knowledge, luckily it was a fairly inexpensive one. The results I’m getting are OK, but than I don’t have anything to compare them to. Being a hobby photographer I definitely can’t justify brands like Broncolor or Profoto in any way, so I was looking around and also found Pixapro. But I have no idea whatsoever if they are worth the money.

I’ve been thinking this same thing for years! Thanks for saying it out loud!

Very useful information. Great channel Karl, I've become a fan quite quickly! Keep up the good work.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, will do!

Nice to see a professional sharing his own experience and not being the regular sellout youtuber. Bravo !

The Instagram handle of the model? please...

@mindcave

3 жыл бұрын

Rumor has it, she wasn't even paid. She wasn't even given copies of the images.

@MrPhilbautista

3 жыл бұрын

Don't bother trying to get in touch with her. I tried and she's impossible to talk to.

@mikewall827

3 жыл бұрын

I hope signed a model release form?

@nic12344

3 жыл бұрын

mannequinmadness

@Louie-ty6bh

3 жыл бұрын

bro she is way out of your league

From a video perspective, the “desired” result is a longer throw, but points are well take. Would love to see tests of falloff at double the distance, but from this we can pretty much guess. Reverse orientation, or a mirrored internal reflectors to truly collimate the light would seem far superior

@realthoprivate

3 жыл бұрын

Does the (diffused) light from a parabolic softbox have longer throw? Or put differently, does the light scatter less from a parabolic softbox because it is less diffused?

@TechnoBabble

7 ай бұрын

There's no longer throw. That's the entire point of the diffusion, is to stop the light from being collimated.

As someone who shots video, what I did notice was with the shallow soft boxes the light doesn’t fill the whole surface as much at lower intensities. With some cob bowens mount LEDs I’m sometimes shooting close ups at 1%, and the parabolic gives you a more even light.

so happy Mr.Taylor kept this real and did not bs us the viewers. THANK YOU SIR!

Primary benefit of a "parabolic" softbox- more rods and therefore rounder catch lights. They also offer a little more variety in light shaping but most people won't use that versatility enough to justify the weight, hassle and price

@tonypmedia

3 жыл бұрын

... still a bunch of parabolic bullshit though lol

@VexedFilms

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah but that doesn't matter if you simply make movies or photos with mannequins like this guy 😉 I mean who's gonna look into people's eyes anyway?

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

@@VexedFilms Yes I make movies and photos with manequins. Mannequin is also the french word for model, so I take these pictures too: www.karltaylor.com

WOW THAT IS A REAL HELPFUL TOPIC. And actually I really struggle with all the freaking weight of my Apurture Lightdome and I asked myself...why can I just use these photo-softboxes - as you might have guessed do video work. But now OF OCURSE I will buy a proper "normal" softbox :D :D :D

BRILLIANT! THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING my suspicions on "parabolic" softboxes! Subscribed!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers.

The video is already two years old, but still very informative. You saved me a lot of money with this. Thanks very much!

@VisualEducationStudio

10 ай бұрын

Glad it helped!

Your points make completely sense. But. Where I see the real difference is when using these lights for full body shots. I do own both a 150cm octa and a 150cm "parabolic", which I use with no front diffuser on. It's still not a true parabolic, we can all agree with that, and they should be not called so, but the shape is different and the light is different. I've noticed it with the last set of images (no diffusers), the background in the photo with the "para" has a bit of a vignette, and it's lighter closer to the subject than the regular octa. I'd love to see this test done again with a light meter involved, and full body images :)

@SimplestUsername

3 жыл бұрын

My thoughts exactly. At 6:08 I did observe that with the front diffusion removed the light fall-off on the subjects cheekbones was a bit more drastic, but it was still no where near what a true parabolic dish would achieve. What a shame. A true parabolic light modifier would be useful in simulating direct sunlight. Throw some *very* light blue defision on it and you're simulating the sun and sky.

Thank you for this video! Now I have to test it as well! I've just ordered a 90 cm parabolic softbox but also a focusing pole for it (I'm gonna use Profoto D2/B1) and I hope it will work as Para 88 from Broncolor. Also, my fiancee loves to listen to you because of your English - even though she's not really into photography (but she graduated London Collage of Fashion). Best regards!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you and thanks to your fiancee for watching (or listening) too!

Thank you for this awesome video! love your content and I am absorbing all the information you have to offer!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Awesome! Thank you!

Great video Karl ! Answered a question (as a relative newbie) I've had in the back of my head for a while. Saved me time and money too, cheers !

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Glad it helped!

Try to use these softboxes feathering the light, the difference is there imho! If you use only the edge of the light, coming from the softboxes, they are really differs. If you use them right opposite to the model, of course no difference. The point is, that a regular softbox spreads the light more widely, the paraboxes have more narrow way out. Also putting much more light onto the background in a smaller studio then yours, and that matters too. :-))) Maybe do another test also trying the feathering, we all appreciate that! On the other hand, I love your honest critics and expert level videos! Zoltán

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks

@ionutmacri

3 жыл бұрын

I am afraid that it's also a myth

@AlfredoReyesEsparza

3 жыл бұрын

I'm afraid that's a myth, the inner parabolic shape cannot possibly change the scattering produced by the outer diffuser.

@genswarc

3 жыл бұрын

@@ionutmacri Have you tried? I use it. There are a lot of bts, tutorial how to use it, how to light like that. Ask Elinchrom, why they do deep softboxes also. And the 100cm Deep sb is one of the best sb ever for portraits.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

​@@genswarc Hi, please see my pinned comment at the top of the page.

MAN I REALLY WANTED VIDEO ON THIS TOPIC!!

@JamesBondage

3 жыл бұрын

seriously! i always had in mind that they’re literally both the same when the outer diffusion are on. sold my parabolic years ago

I have always wondered what's the actual use of the parabolic octas since the first time I've seen one, and everyone gave me explanations that sounded fancy to me, to say the least. Thanks to make it clear with your video!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers

Even with youtube compression I can see that the octa gives noticably softer highlights. And that is supporten by physics also as the para has more surface area to bounce the light before it hits the front diffuser.

I think that one of the significant advantages of parabolic softboxes was the light fall off at the edge. Valuable if you wanted to light the subject (usually from an angle rather than front) but still keep the background dark. They are a bit more weight/leverage and, therefore a bit harder to gaff. I didn't hear anything here that addressed the edge falloff which is unfortunate. That would be a good thing to test. Sorry, but I just don't care for the anger and exaggerations, especially when I think he missed an important use case.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

You must not be a fan of Gordon Ramsey then either.

@JaredRibic

3 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure how the edge falloff applies when front diffusion material is applied. If the light is evenly spread across the 150cm diameter front diffusion on both a 'normal and a 'parabolic' softbox then you'd simply have a 150cm diameter light source. It doesn't really matter what's going on behind that 150cm diffusion material as long as there are no hot-spots. I would imagine one could expect to find the same quality/shape of light from a 150cm 'flapjack' style flat LED light source.

@airb1976

3 жыл бұрын

@@JaredRibic agree. Dan is Missing one of the fundamentals of light, spreading of light in every direction

@josephtese5037

2 жыл бұрын

@@JaredRibic Correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't the level of softness (which correlates to the fall-off rate) DOES indeed change based on the distance between the diffusion material and the core light source? This is a principle regardless if it manifests practically in this specific example or not.

@DietrichLasa

2 жыл бұрын

We are too quick in concluding that parabolic softboxes are not different in their result. When they are applied as in this video, then there is little difference. In other settings, the difference is clear. I am surprised that only this setting was used to prove a point.

The idea behind some parabolic softboxes (that with an additional focus system, similar like on the broncolor para) is, that you can use the same lightshaper with different accessories for different results. Without the additional focus system, this lightshaper (i guess, softbox is the wrong word) will be a big directional reflector, or - with the diffuser - a very round softbox. Or you can use the additional grid. Or you put the lightshaper on the additional focus system, where you have a indirectional light source on a focusable tube. True or not true parabolic reflector: it is depending on construction from the lightshaper. With the traditional softbox style construction, like the elinchrome litemotiv, you will need a big speedring, which will determine the backside shape from the reflector. This ones will have the round shape backsides. Even the additional focus system will have a giantic round plate for the speedring. With an fix assembled rod system with click mechanism, like the deep parabolic softbox from Jinbei as an example, the shape from the backside will be more "parabolic". But honestly, if someone use that different parabolic softboxes with the additional focus systems, the shape from the backside doesn´t really matter, because nobody will use the lightsource near the damn backside.

Between hearing you call parabolic softboxes "marketing bullsh*t" , and Miquel Quiles saying "photographers should not buy presets", which was beautiful, my faith is slowly being restored in finding reliable encouraging sources of information.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers

@MrSkate2night

3 жыл бұрын

@@VisualEducationStudio I see alot of these so called parabolic softboxes and I am grateful for your video and feedback. I was curious about the one linked above as a glow profound 70 parabolic softbox with focusing rod....does having the focusing rod give it the same type of light as these parabolic reflectors? I am still learning. Curious how much the focusing rod plays into it this scenario along with the geometry. Looking forward to your response. (delete out the one I mentioned if you want...not trying to look like an ad - just started spending my first real investment into lighting beyond speedlights) or maybe they can send you one lol :)

Really great explaination on the uselessness of these softboxes. I just thought they'd be somehow better seeing ALL the youtubers using and recommending them, and even if they aren't endorsing them explicitly, the fact that they are using them, implicitly makes the viewers feel that parabolic softboxes will be somehow better. Good thing that the Godox dealer I talked with recently just recommended me their 120 cm octabox when I asked for the parabolic version, which was much more expensive, and even though I wasn't able to find a video as good as this earlier, my basic understanding of light and physics made me go with the octabox, but I was still a bit confused about there being some differences, but you cleared that up.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

@yuvrajwadhwani

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting. As a user of the Godox P90H for video, not photography, I'd like to compare the octabox to the parabolic modifiers myself. My understanding is that the octabox would have slightly more spill to the side, while the parabolic one would be more focused, as seen from the bright background in this video. The softness of both would be identical, as is evident in this video as well. For photographing models and objects, I would agree with this video completely. But for video, having control over spill (especially with a honeycomb grid) is valuable. Especially if you have multiple people in the frame, or if you want to illuminate the background differently. Is it worth the extra weight and hassle? That's a personal choice. Maybe I'll get the octabox modifier and do a comparison myself.

@TechReflex

3 жыл бұрын

@@yuvrajwadhwani I don't think that should be the case, as soon as light hits the diffusion material it's getting diffused in all directions, so parabolic softbox shouldn't have a more controlled spill of light. I'd guess only a grid can help you in controlling the spill of light. Check out his excellent video on parabolic reflectors, the shape just doesn't seem to benefit when you use it as a softbox, as it just wasn't meant to be used for that.

@sascharheker1958

3 жыл бұрын

@@yuvrajwadhwani Maybe it's just a very bad diffusion causing a hotspot giving the impression of less spill.

Hi Karl : Your comparison is nice , however, I must very respectfully say, I do observe a very small difference in the results you are showing , and to me the parabolic soft box light looks a little bit softer, and the octanos 150, a very tiny bit more specular. Best regards.

@aumcosmos8286

3 жыл бұрын

Also see better transaction from highlight to shadows, brighter shadows, and now so brighter highlight

@theoutlandishblueprint2419

3 жыл бұрын

So do I

@airb1976

3 жыл бұрын

The small differences are because of the big size!

@repasiv

3 жыл бұрын

Parabolic looks better to me. The diffkerence with diffusor I might not be able to tell but in comparison it looks better. Maybe the catchlight looks also better. Not to mention that the psrabolic gives more light in every test.

Great video. I love the way your extensive knowledge wipes the floor with anything that isn’t kosher within the photography industry. Thank you, More of the same please.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Awesome! Thank you

Came back to comment again...your work is stunning mate! Very impressive and creative uses of light.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Cheers!

Thanks for being straight with us. I was actually researching "parabolic softboxes" when this notification popped up.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Great and good timing.

One obvious difference that wasn’t mentioned: having an octagonal vs round catchlight in the subject’s eyes. Not that it’s necessarily worth the trouble but you can definitely see the difference in close-up headshots.

Thanks for clearing this up. I've often suspected that once the diffusor is on there's really not much difference as long as you don't have hot spots.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers and yes

Excellent video! This is very Educational, Thank you for making this Video!

Well, that came across just slightly angry, but I can understand why, lol. It takes a basic understanding of the behavior of light to cut through marketing hype surrounding modifiers (not just (pseudo-)parabolic ones). I can imagine you've had to explain the difference to Bron para's about a zillion times by now, and from now on you can just refer to this video instead. I appreciate the direct comparison. Quite clear.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

@@samlincicome4904 Unfortunately for you Sam it seems you're getting confused, that previous videos was about parabolic reflectors, this video was about 'parabolic' softboxes which are a nonsense.

@MathewPoolman

3 жыл бұрын

@@samlincicome4904 "I mean no offence but here's an aggressive comment where I misunderstand the content" 😂

I wish I saw this video before I bought mine!

Love your work! Thanks for the clarity

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

My pleasure!

Thank you karl sir for making such an amazing and informative video. This video saves me money and effort. Thank you once again love from 🇮🇳

Great Idea! I noticed a big change in brightness on the backdrop. Isn’t that a effect of a parabolic shaped light?

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

On which shot?

@rizziseven

3 жыл бұрын

@@Rusted_Eyes Exactly

@tierangreen

3 жыл бұрын

That’s because the modifier itself has a longer throw. Doesn’t make it parabolic whatsoever, however the the efficacy of the light is multiplied in distance when using a longer reflector. Certain hard reflectors (P70, Profoto TeleZoom) were absolutely designed to allow the light’s travel to be longer/more efficient. Think about it mike a megaphone or an brass instrument with a large long horn; it doesn’t necessarily make it louder, but the SPL (in this case, angle of incidence) is able to travel further. To Karl’s point though, in any real world setting, the difference in SHAPE of the light is in fact nearly indistinguishable. In no way are they parabolic in nature, and the menial differences in shape are pretty much null and void.

@MiaogisTeas

3 жыл бұрын

@@tierangreen Yep, nailed it. I agree with what Karl's saying cause I noticed it straight away after I got one... But I also noticed it was doing something my umbrella wasn't: narrowing the beam throw. I still feel stupid for spending twice as much on it as I would have if I'd just gotten a big umbrella. I do prefer the round catchlight though

@Justas49

3 жыл бұрын

It's deep softbox. Not a parabolic. Ofcourse it has different result. It is like light from a tube and it is a lot narrower. Because it is deeper and light source is further. So spreadint not as wide. Edges are blocking light.

Parabolic reflectors are also used in headlights to direct and focus light. - not to diffuse it.

@airb1976

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, Karl is a pro and uses this broncolors for a Long Time and He knows this

@tejagudise

3 жыл бұрын

okay, will grid do the same effect as the parabolic does?

@bgateb

3 жыл бұрын

@@tejagudise no - Grids tightly control spill/coverage; true parabolic reflectors actually collimate the light similar to a fresnel.

@jas_bataille

3 жыл бұрын

Which is the point. A parabolic soft box do not make sense.

A clear case of markeing parabollicks. Wonderfully clear and concise explanation.

Hi Karl, True for in the studio. I have tried to go through all the comments seeing if someone already mentioned it. A "Long Focus Reflector" or "45 Degree Hard Reflector" for outside long-range shooting a subject many meters away. The deep parabolic softboxes without diffusion act exactly like an Extra Large Long Focus Reflector (in layman's terms like a flashlight). I stumbled on this while looking for the largest Long Focus Reflector and realized this is what the first designer of a deep parabolic probably had in mind (I hope). We do not see many examples of Long Focus Reflector photography but go check it out online. And yes this is just my observation and not based on any facts. I have seen a guy shoot mountain climbers with a 45 Degree Hard Reflector from ground level at least 50+ meters away. And yes he was battling with that large piece of metal up the mountains. So yes, I think a deep parabolic softbox has an indoor purpose plus an outdoor purpose. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hpd40KqYdqbAdrw.html&feature=emb_logo

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Hi Doc, please see my pinned comment at the top.

Hi Karl, well explained video and highly interesting, thank you! Although I understand your point, watching and looking at the images, I have no doubt that the parabolic samples are better! At least to me...as you say, the difference is negligible and being cumbersome and heavy to handle, there is no point using them. I also understand that the final result can be obtained easily by one of your editors, whereas pro photographers like to nail the shot to 98%, don’t they? In any case, I am far from being equipped like you are and do use a parabolic umbrella, which is certainly easy to handle 😊 even outside. Maybe I should think about switching to a smaller body and lenses than my MF...? Cheers

@airb1976

3 жыл бұрын

Read his pinned comment ...

Well great, I just ordered one😂

Very informative, clear, crisp comparison. Thanks 😊

Was asking this question for years! Thank you!

Interesting test, certainly no difference on the model, but the parabolic seems to spill much more light onto the background?

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks

@TaavP

3 жыл бұрын

That's not the point on the difference to a para. If you want a darker or lighter background you can just adjust its distance

@airb1976

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, but only when you Take of any Diffusion Material from the Front

Yup these things are so heavy that I never use mine, I got bit by the hype.

Thank you for confirming this in this test. Regretfully, I own two parabolic softboxes, but I haven't bought any new ones since I did that years ago. So the money part doesn't bother me, today. I am unfortunately still dealing with the size and weight. Anyway, thanks again.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your feedback and honesty!

Thank you for this post. I have been telling photographers this for years but coming from a professional like you instead of an amateur like me the message carries more weight. One thing that I frequently hear is that there is less stray light with a deep parabolic softbox, that the light is more concentrated in front of the softbox, Horse pucky! Light spreads from the front diffuser. The light spread is exactly the same for a deep dish softbox or a shallow one if the front diffuser is flush with the front of the softbox. Only by recessing the front diffuser can you change the light spread. Again, thanks for this excellent video.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Don, and absolutely correct.

Enough said!

Thanks for this valuable information. It’s highly appreciated Sir!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Most welcome!

I like the whole concept of circumnavigating the laws of physics ! Certainly an out-of-this-world experience :-P

The King of Light has spoken! As always very informative and great insights! Thank you Karl!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

You are very welcome

The parabolic is deeper than the soft box. When the front diffusers removed, the light source is farther from the subject. The inverse square law shows its truth in the brighter background. The relative distance difference between subject and background is less, therefore rendering a brighter background.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Yes good points

Finally a reputable photographer talking about photography myths that are meaningful to photographers like me

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Caleb

Finally someone talks about it!!! great video Karl

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers.

Thanks, you just save me a lot of space in my studio 👌🏻.. great demo

Oh come on, I just ordered a 90 parabolic softbox today.

@nathanmoore7120

3 жыл бұрын

Really?? 😂😂

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Sorry! Just here to provide information for all.

@MichelSaiful

3 жыл бұрын

@@VisualEducationStudio I was able to cancel the order and save 140€. I have to offer you a beer :)

@cifuentesphotos

3 жыл бұрын

One minute. If you order something, especially photographic equipment, You probably did your homework and found a reason for it. Changing your mind after just one review, is not the way to go. I believe karl is a very competent and up to day photographer, but if you found that you need it, then you need it.

I've always wondered why people bothered with those. If the diffusion screen becomes the light source anything behind it becomes mostly irrelevant.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly, that's physics!

This helped me so much. Thank you!

When I used a Broncolor parabolic reflector in the studio I found it frustrating because the model would move half a metre and the light would change completely. I must have had the lamp head quite deep into the reflector.

a parabolic softbox is just parabollocks

the only reason i bouht one is to impress the client, it seems to work because they get exited about things the dont know, and for regular people they seem to get in a better mood wich helps me a lot in posing non experienced persons

Honestly most photographers YT videos are absolute rubbish. You absolutely speak the truth and it’s greatly appreciated

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Justin

Thank You! For inspirational and educational videos. Best regard's. Love your scientific tests. Always precise.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Great video! I never really understood how these "parabolic softboxes" could be both parabolic and a softbox. Especially with the light facing the wrong way and their odd shape! I could never see any benefits when KZread'rs promoted these things. Pictures look the same as a regular softboxes. I thought I was missing something. Thanks for putting this issue to bed for me.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

I always wondered what was the big deal about parabolic deep reflectors (and softlight) and now I know, it was all hype. Thanks for explaining!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

Excellent comparison, and excellent sass!! Love the 'I dare you' at the end!

Thanks for the class.

Debunking myth after myth - very nice video, enjoyed watching it :)

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it thanks

I just had a feeling this video was going to come out sooner or later. I bought a 38'' parabolic softbox for video/photo a while ago thinking it would be a softer light cause of the distance from the source to through both diffusions that the light would be softer. I've used it for a few shoots and I've noticed everything Karl said about the modifier was right on point imo. It took up too much space, very front heavy, and I just didn't see a big difference compared to using an 3 ft octabox.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Jai.

I had the same thought about parabolic softboxes. Thank you for testing.

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

No problem 👍

Thanks for the fun video! 👍

my two cents is the parabolic shape for a softbox will give you a mix of softness with direction so that the shadows are more dramatic than a regular softbox. A little more defined. However, that kind of look, which I like, can still be done just by moving a regular softbox farther back until you reach a point between where it's really soft and where it looks directional. And the same can be done with bouncing a light off a white ceiling by raising the light closer to the ceiling or lowering it. Or with window light, you can see it change with your eyes by looking at the difference between being right next to the window and moving further back into the room away from the window. There comes a point where the light keeps it's softness, but moves away from the really soft, flat look of being right next to the window and starts to get stronger shadows for more drama. Maybe you can spend the extra money for a heavier parabolic softbox and have it next to what you're shooting. Or you could use a regular softbox, move it back a little, or even use a grid or those egg creat grids and get the same effect. Nice video. Always enjoy any video that cuts through the exaggerations and things that are purposely made to some more to than there actually is. (OMG, that's amazing!. How'd you do that?) (Pretty girl, pretty outfit, you're done)

Hi Karl, This is a great video & easy to understand you hit the target. It's about time a real working photography said it as it is. Light's and gear don't make a great photographer when the gear is over priced and a big waste of time to update to the latest and greatest! If you don't know how to use light you will be taken in with the new gear syndrome !

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

Thank you very much for confirming. This has always been my impression (I have an engineering background) but never had had one available to compare it empirically. Thanks!

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers

Anyone know if Broncolor softbox speedring has a bowens option (for bowens mount strobes/lights?) I cant seem to find any...unlike Profoto which has alot of mounting options for RFI...

nice review. just purchased a ad400pro and I am still looking for a octabox for studio (120-150cm seem advised here), easy to assemble (I am not skill to assemble quickly rods, fabric,...), and for street/on-location (66-85cm) easy to assemble. I am investigating westcott rapidbox, magbox, godox ads-085s (so many diffusers !!! do we need them all ?).

Thanks for this clarification ❤

I love that you are so straightforward :D thank you

@VisualEducationStudio

2 жыл бұрын

You're welcome!

Hey Karl. Thanks so much for being so straightforward about all this mess about the parabolic "soft box". I'm still figuring out practically everything about off camera lighting and have enough inexpensive modifiers., soft boxes included. If I'm getting this correctly will a parabolic "umbrella" give me the advantage of being able to push my light source further away from my subject for more wider shots, I.E sunset shooting with faster shutter speeds, using my FP600. Subscribed ! and will be looking through the rest of your posts to soak up some more info. Thanks

@VisualEducationStudio

3 жыл бұрын

Yes true parabolic reflectors will direct the light energy further by keeping it one area better.