Beauty dishes and octaboxes are two of the most common lighting modifiers out there, with almost every portrait studio in existence owning at least one of the two, if not both. They are not identical, though, and each renders your subject in a unique way, which is why it is important to understand the differences so you can pick the proper one for your style and clients' needs. This great video tutorial will show you a deep look at the two options, how they differ, and which is appropriate for different situations.
Coming to you from John Gress, this helpful video tutorial will show you the differences between octaboxes and beauty dishes for portrait work. Both modifiers are excellent options for portraiture, though they do have their differences. Octaboxes generally give a bit softer light that is flattering on pretty much any subject and thus, useful as a first choice. On the other hand, if you are looking for a bit more punch and contrast, a beauty dish can offer that, which will allow you to bring out more texture and detail as well as your subject's facial structure. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Gress.
And if you would like to continue learning about lighting for portraits, be sure to check out "Illuminating The Face: Lighting for Headshots and Portraits With Peter Hurley!"
6 Comments
Augh, I lost my comment as my computer froze up but luckily took a photo of it.
Well it is not like it's an apples to oranges comparison, more like Fuji apples or Red Delicious apples.
I heard that the magic of a good BD is in the penumbra or transitional at the edge of the light to shadow. A guy in my studio could always find the "zone". I was more like the blind squirrel who found an acorn once in a while...
I must admit, I was hoping the Mola would be streets ahead, but not really. (That may save me a few £££).
This test does show that whilst we'll often wax lyrical about the merits or magic of a particular modifier, there really isn't the difference we may want there to be. The Mola is punchier, but is that because it is a bit smaller rather than the wiggly shape? And really how critical is that catchlight? (Are we the only ones that notice it?)
I did a test recently between my octaboxes and my 3 beauty dishes. I could see subtle differences but many other photographers were struggling to see it - and I can't blame them. Because often just a few inches of different placement or a slight head turn might spoil or better the effect.
I may have bought my endless range of boxes and BD's on a flawed quest. :)
I do think that a decent BD will give a little more punch to an image. A bit more bite and highlight to the cheeks. But it depends on the BD and it may also depend on the distance of the central plate to the tube - rarely mentioned in reviews. I've modified my Profoto BD in this respect and I get a different look now to what it was originally. I've found the perfect sweet spot for D1 / B1 strobes. (Alas Profoto aren't interested in my findings).
One BD that wasn't included, but I find is quite remarkable - is the Westcott Rapid (Joel Grimes) collapsable BD. Fast and rugged, but it gives off an incredible light, akin to a Profoto white metal dish with a Pro Head. And importantly, very forgiving to use, which some BD's are not.
Interestingly, I find many reviewer or demonstrators tend to point their BD's almost pointing at the top of the head rather than directly at the face. I wonder if we're really seeing the true light pattern with this popular tweak on placement?
For me, my favourite is currently a landscaped Profoto 2' x 3' softbox, mounted centrally, angled at a gentle 25 degrees to feather it and exactly 100cm from the model. If anyone asks about the catchlight, I tell them it is a window. :)
(But I'll change my mind by Tuesday).
It also depends on the skin tones. Darker skin tones works better with softer light out of a soft box
Why are you thinking this? I've had amazing results with BD's on dark skin. Unless I'm missing something, there would be no difference.