Super helpful analysis. Thanks Anthony! I often shoot deep parabolic for two reasons... the first is the catch light. For me round handily beats a specular stop sign. The second? I found that if I push the diffusion back into the parabolic I can indeed narrow the spread front diffusion creates. That versatility comes in handy when I'm trying to control fall-off.
Great video! They’re definitely heavy and take up a lot of horizontal space. I wanted an easy setup option but, I’ve realized that a DEEP para wasn’t necessary for my needs. I mostly bought it for versatility but, it’s weight is a big issue.
@HW Photography weight is the main reason I don't use mine much, especially on location. For the minimal variance you get in light output and quality, it usually isn't worth the hassle of setting it up, counter weighting it, and having a stand and light durable enough to withstand the weight. I've since replaced all the sizes of my deep paras with regular octas.
This test was fantastic!! I'm looking at going with the EZ 36" with diffusion. Been using the Godox 24"-fold-out square modifier for years. Does not look like I need to worry about deep parabolic at this point! Thanks again
The 36” is my go-to these days! Definitely forgo the deep para’s, there’s not enough difference in the light output or pattern to justify the added weight, especially once you move up to the larger sizes!
I only bought the 48” deep para from glow because it was bigger than my 43” beauty dish. But the light quality is nearly identical with the baffle and diffusers in. The only benefit is being able to get a little farther away when I’m using Rembrandt lighting. One of these days they’re going to make a 7’ beauty dish and then I’ll finally be happy. 🤣
That would be a big beauty dish @stuffwarrensez LOL, but yeah, the marginal gains from the deep octa are definitely outweighed by the size and weight. My deep para's are pretty much my "throw away" modifiers now.
Good honest review. I too was on the fence of getting a Deep para but after watching this I don't think I need one. I've got the Glow 45 degree long throw if I need to concentrate my light. Thanks for the video!
In hindsight @Edgar Cabrera I likely wouldn't have ordered as many deep para's as I did if I knew this info back then. Sure, the light spread is a little smoother with the deep para but I really haven't noticed the difference much in real world use versus aiming it at a cinderblock wall. Thanks for stopping by!
Was about to pull the trigger on a 48" deep parabolic softbox after watching Karl's video 2 days back but you just saved me from doing it.. I guess I can still achieve the same focused beam of light from my 48" octobox using a diffuser and grid.. Thanks alot man..waiting for another podcast with you and Ryan..
@josh McDzz if I knew then what I knew now, I wouldn't have bought mine. For my style of shooting there really is minimal, minimal benefits in using the deep para, and a lot more negatives that makes it impractical. I usually use it when I'm in a location where it could possibly be damaged (heavy winds or I'm going to put it somewhere precarious); that way my feelings won't be hurt if something does happen to it. :-D
Thank you! A ez glow parabolic soft box came with my AD600 and I didn't understand its purpose so haven't used it. I like the gradient with the parabolic vs. the octa in your tests though, so I'll try it out. Your video has been the only helpful one on this topic, thank you for your time.
@monsterwerksvideo I agree, I like the gradient from the deep para more, but I will say sometimes the deep para is a pain to work with, especially outdoors. But I love the modifier and use it pretty regularly. Thank you for watching and for the kind words, it's much appreciated.
Very well done!! this shows exactly that with diffusion, it really doesn't matter how deep you modifier is, the light spread once the light passes through last layer of diffusion will be the same. Excellent display! This test also showed how the outer shape of the modifier will influence shape of falloff. So takeaway is, if you did want to use a modifier with no diffusion, or single layer of internal diffusion... then depth of modfier will have an influence of spread of light. However, if you always use outer diffusion material, then there is negligible difference, and for ease of use, it would be best to use a more compact style. Thanks Anthony
Thank you so much, bro! I like your serious attitude in doing the serious experiment and test. This is so helpful. I have seen what I hope to see, and I have made up my mind.
This is music to my ears @claudemusic3599, this is why I make these sorts of videos. I appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. Good day to ya.
What's up Man. Man I have been busy .gotta catch up on some videos. Been looking at some better lighting. Nice video man .i learn something from every one of your videos.
@Photography by Dash I definitely enjoy using mine, I use it all the time, but it's heavy especially if you boom it. I'm likely going to buy a 48" octa for times when I'm outdoors and need something lighter and more portable.
@Art_by _Adrian2 thank you kindly! If I would be more consistent with posting, maybe my channel would be bigger lol. At the end of the day I do this to help people, so all is good either way. I appreciate you watching and commenting.
@@AnthonyToglife absolutely and you definitely should have a much bigger channel I'm still trying to figure out which I should get lol it's going to be glow I just don't know if it should be the deep or the regular
Shooting outside, i think the Glow ParaSnap is definitely the way to go. I did think the parabolic might act like a long throw reflector and therefore increase the light output although it did look a bit brighter. Great video as alway brother!!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥
I’ll have to test to see if the deep para throws light further, in usage I don’t know that I’ve seen that, but I haven’t paid much attention. I appreciate you commenting and making me think. 🙂
Thanks for doing all of this work for us!!! I understand that you are comparing the two types of softbox, but what I notice is how smoothly your light falls off while using a speedlight and the deflector plate in both modifiers. I'm an old guy still clinging to my monobloc's. More and more though, I'm finding use for speedlights. Great test and well presented. Subscribed!
Not bad though- considering deep para acts like a large reflector and gives you more room to keep it further from your subject (without diffuser). Additionally you get better shaped catchlights :) Well done and thanks for doing the comparison!
Thanks man! I was just about to pull the trigger on the 38" Glow deep para for my AD300. I've been wondering about the weight though. Your test really helps, so now I'm going to think it through a little bit more.
@Tom Jamison it's definitely a heavier modifier and although I don't really have a problem when using it, I would certainly choose a similar size regular octabox over it if I had it at my disposal. But, I do like having the versatility of using it without diffusion if I'm going for a more edgy look so I'm still happy I have it. And sometimes I prefer the round catchlight versus the octagonal shape.
Great video Thanks for sharing I personally have not used them but a lot of the glow products look bulky. I jumped into the profoto system and their octa’s are great. I do a lot of high school sports and I can pack light and still have exactly what I need. I also live in a mountain town and those things would be sails on most days. How does it do in the wind for you?
@Karl Mullings I would say the Glow modifiers aren't any more bulky than other Bowens mount modifiers, but that Bowens mount in general is definitely bulky. It's very difficult to travel with most of my Glow modifiers, unfortunately. With it being super windy here in Vegas many days, I tend to do the opposite of what most people would think, and I use bigger octa's. The bigger size, maybe surprisingly, handles better in the wind than my smaller modifiers. Of course I have to weight down the stands regardless. I do think I'm going to invest in some more portable gear that I can use when I travel, or just need to pack light for a local gig.
I was thinking about buying one of these before Karl's video, appreciate the video further confirming what Karl said. I rarely if ever shoot undiffused so I wouldn't benefit from a deep parabolic.
@Jose Lara yeah, I wouldn't buy any more deep para's myself, and the ones I have to kinda use as "throw away" modifiers, don't really care if they get damaged or whatever.
@@AnthonyToglife I just ordered a 24” beauty dish, I got silver I feel like I should have gotten white though. I’ll probably order a white one as well lol
@@holdmyown32 ya know, I personally don't see a HUGE difference between the two when they're both diffused. I know people say the silver produces a more specular light and very faintly I can see it at times, but I think having the silver offers more versatility (can shoot with no diffusion for a punchy, specular light). But it doesn't hurt to have both really.
Interesting tests, Im curious if you could get the same results as the parabolic from the octabox with a grid and how putting a grid on both of them affects the light. Maybe in that case the octabox would prove to be more versatile..
@Anastasia Ray I'm thinking a grid would neutralize the two and there wouldn't be a discernible difference between them, but I'll have to play around with them and see.
thanks for taking the time to do this testing. i do think you should have said more about how a deep para is by definition ADJUSTABLE and when it's not (as is the case for all the cheap ones trying to capitalize on the word "para"), they are simply heavier softboxes. period. similar to how the word "beauty dish" has now been applied to softboxes, as they are not true beauty dishes that throw hard lighting. at least in this case they are usually lighter than a real beauty dish :-). i think the key point to all this is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. there are NO "do everything" modifiers, no matter what the company decides to call them :-)
@hdrsmit I appreciate your comment. The intent of my video wasn't really to outline the specifics of either modifier, it was specifically to look at the quality of light from the two, because I bought deep para's with the thought that the light would be more directional and smaller spread. Nonetheless, I welcome feedback like this.
I’ve actually tested these modifiers with the inner diffuser and it has near no impact on the light when combined with the deflector plate. Without the deflector plate, it does help to reduce the center hotspot. So these days I just use the plate and outer only. The inner diffusers on the Glow modifiers are such a pain to unbutton, I’m glad it worked out this way.
Hi Anthony, Great stuff. I watched the Karl Taylor vid some time ago. Now maybe I'm confusing it with another karl taylor one. This is one where the light was reversed and pointed into the parabolic modifier and could be adjusted anywhere from all the way in to all the way out. He also made the point that if it were a true Parabola the bounce would be very specific and different. I have a 4' cheetah with the adjustable device that they call a chopstick. Heavy but I love the options it provides.
@Bill Johnson I believe all true parabolics have the light facing inward; it's necessary to be able to "zoom" the light. I personally have not seen a deep parabolic modifier that was marketed as being a true parabola or functioning as such, so while I can somewhat understand his frustration with the marketing, they really aren't marketing it as a true parabolic. But still, although I like my deep para's, they're heavy and most times the light quality doesn't offset the hassle of using a heavy modifier, especially on location or outdoors.
my biggest takeaway is that I can have my light (28" para) 5 feet away from the model before I get light spill on the ground...which will come in handy when the ambient light is at a minimum
Great video and as you mentioned, the good thing with the Glow series of modifiers, you aren't charged an "upcharge" for one or the other. I wish I had known about the Glow brand a couple of years ago when I purchased the Westcott brand - could have saved some major coins. But I did just purchase some glow strip boxes and love that fact that you don't have to pay extra for the plate or the egg crates. I do like my Westcott Rapid Boxes, but had I known...IJS
Yeah, I got lucky in that I found the Glow line right at the start of the pandemic when I was looking to expand my modifier gear set, then I went crazy and bought way too many, lol. I was absolutely floored to see what some of these other companies are charging for something as simple as a cheap fabric grid, it's insane.
@WednesdayRaven thank you kindly, very much appreciate you watching and commenting. These types of videos definitely take a lot of time and effort to make. But, I definitely plan to do more vids like this.
Hello, maybe you will be able to advise me: I am looking for a modifier that will give me a wide, slightly contrasting light. I tested parabolic umbrellas (unfortunately I will not fit a real parabola in my) and the light was too contrasting, and I do not know if putting a diffuser on such an umbrella would make it equal to a softbox. is it better to buy a larger softbox? I'm making (amateur)fashion/ portrait photos of the whole character
@Adam B let's dive into this a little bit, what causes contrast in lighting? Specularity and hardness, and both of those things are caused by either small or low-diffused light sources. I personally think an umbrella with a sock (diffusion material over the opening of the umbrella) provides a LOT of flexibility (and portability) in achieving a contrasty look. Silver interior modifiers will also help to add a little punch. The umbrellas I have are great at providing a punchy light even when using them with a sock. Something like this (www.adorama.com/gluel41s.html) would be great at achieving the look you're describing. Can you provide me some sample photos of what you've tested thus far?
@Wallace Barnett a grid will do that. I personally don't care much for the contrasty look of grids so I don't use them unless I absolutely need to control the spread of light.
Very interesting. I think where things become interesting is when you introduce fresnel lenses into the equation , especially larger ones that are massive that would cover the entire diameter of the modifier. Crazy these don’t exist as they would significantly reduce spill and maintain power output. However…. I do wonder how much light is attenuated as a result of the reflections inside the modifier and as distance increases. Dan Rojas of Green Power Science made one softbox using a rectangular TV fresnel- the science checks out- and the results were stunning.
Well, there's definitely a noticeable difference in light pattern, quality, and softness when using true parabolic modifiers, especially ones with the movable rod, so I'm sure adding a fresnel to the mix would have a noticeable difference as well.
Love this! As a beginner this helps me decide where my money goes. I always shoot with a diffused modifier so I’d rather choose the easier and lighter weight modifier. The only time I’d see a benefit for deep parabolic is if I really needed throw, which means undiffused. Could be helpful with ultra wide shots where the flash needs to be way off frame. SUBSCRIBED!
Absolutely @Laurence, the lighter weight makes a BIG difference, especially if you boom, and you're also right that if you need to throw that undiffused light, the deep para would be the better option. I appreciate you watching and commenting, and most meaningfully, subscribing. Thank you!
Excellent video Anthony. You definitely answered my questions. But what if you use an umbrella ( 48/60 inch) silver interior with a diffuser, how does this compare?
Thank you @michael lekas. I don't own any silver-lined umbrella's so I can't test this but I honestly don't feel it would differ much from a regular octabox, especially at that size.
I just saw the Karl Taylor video. I saw a huge different in b/w the octa and para w/ diffusion. His own images showed me I should buy a para. I don't understand how there wasn't an obvious difference in the lighting people saw. I wish this video had been on a model's face.
Well @Josh McCosh I would say you’re in the minority if you’re referring to the diffused comparisons 😉 Either way, both of our videos served their purpose - they helped you come to an informed decision. I appreciate you commenting.
My conclusion is that the point @Karl Taylor is trying to make in his videos about Broncolor parabolic modifiers is that they provide specific QUALITY of light on a subject lit by them. Your video, on the other hand, shows how modifiers focus/spread the light, which is a great addition to the general knowledge about how a different shape and/or structure of a modifier affects the light. I'm still having a hard time deciding what shape, size and type my next light modifier will be, but your video made this decision one step closer to make ;) As it comes to those "so called" parabolic modifiers, I guess it is more about them having more edges (typically 16 vs. 8 in standard octaboxes) - the best example to prove that it's a marketing catchword is the "parabolic umbrella" that in reality has nothing to do with a parabola, those are just more rounded (vide 16 edges) ;)
@@AnthonyToglife Might be so ;) but still - as I've seen someone else's video comparing Broncolor Para with Briese Focus and something from Profoto (if I remember it right) - those light modifiers (Broncolor Para) really outperform everything else in terms of the light quality on a model (and of course - everything is a matter of personal taste, after all ;) ).
Thanks for your video and data points. My take away is the para w/ diffuser has a softer drop off (which I like), but is heavier and outputs less light than the octa. Do you have any opinion or sample shots of a white versus silver para?
The goal of a softboxes is homogeneity at the front diffusion panel (parabolic reflectors goal is not homogeneity). Even light. No hotspot. It seems a deeper profile would accomplish this easier and accomplishing this in a shallower profile would need better geometry. I'd like to see a test of how well different diffusers accomplish this. That is what determines how good a softboxes is and if it's performing as it's meant to. Thanks for your hard work!
@R J Photo although I agree with what you've said, I would argue the geometry of the modifier would play a much bigger role in homogeneity than the front diffuser. I think even the best diffusion material out there would still suffer from hotspots when used on a poorly designed modifier.
@@AnthonyToglife Ahh, yes. My statement wasn't about the diffuser's front panel material it was different diffusers meaning different octoboxes/softboxes as light diffusers. I could have been more succinct. I expect an expensive broncolor softbox to diffuse light better than a glow diffuser. I expect they put more resources into the product to ensure that the light output at the front panel is homogeneous as their discerning customers would demand. And glow, less so ( Fyi-I buy Glow). I'd love to see a test of that. Would you, too? You rock for getting back to me quickly!
@@rockj8197 ya know, I think there's a line between quality and name tax. Take for example Apple (and disclaimer, I'm an Apple user), but their products, albeit good, are arguably overpriced for what you get. But the designs are modern and the ecosystem is stellar so we pay the "Apple Tax" nonetheless. I find Broncolor and Profoto and even Westcott to fall into this category. I don't think their products are that much superior to a brand like Glow. Their products are likely more durable and the quality may be marginally better, but I personally don't think one would see THAT much of a difference. Of course people who use those higher-end products may disagree, the way die-hard Apple fans will defend any and everything Apple does. It's all subjective I guess and whatever works for each person is what works. I would indeed like to see the comparisons you speak of, maybe I need to convince Broncolor and Profoto to send me some free stuff lolol.
@@AnthonyToglife , I think it may also be that, by the time photogs are billing enough for their business to afford Broncolor & Briese, they've gotten *so very good at creativity, working according to the client's brief, knowing what they want in hairmakeupwardrobeaccessoriesmodels, set design, background, color theory, lighting, using kickers, hairlights, key, & fill, feathering the light, knowing what contrast & falloff they want*, etc, that the high-end equipment complements their skill level. [Also, photogs doing advertorials/sponsored videos for Broncolor & Briese aren't mentioning how important the retoucher's contribution is to the final images]. (Just an idea).
My guess is that a parabolic softbox distrubute the light more evenly. It would probably be more of a difference without the reflector in front of the beam of light. This would perhaps make a difference if the softbox is put close to the subject. A way to test this would be to take photos into the softboxes at low exposure.
@Svamp Träsk without the reflector there would most definitely be a hotspot in the center and the light spread likely would change. I personally think the light spread/falloff is a TAD smoother with the deep para with diffusion, but I really think it's splitting hairs.
I paused at 4:31, stared for 10 seconds, then laughed my butt off. Being a musician, we too obsess over split-hair differences that we never feel settled on until we purchase the more popular, higher priced of the available choices.
I have a Glow Deep Parabolic softbox. The torque certainly is troublesome because the center of gravity is farther from the axis of rotation, but is it actually heavier?
@Daniel Bowers close to a 2lb difference between the Glow 48" deep para and 48" octa. Equates to almost double the weight, which when adding in the torque you mentioned above, it's quite a significant difference.
i got a broncolor 222 recently. with the diffuser it is like an octa, probably with no hotspot if you defocus. without a diffuser i have to learn how to use it. if you defocus all the light is on the outer edges of the para so it is a bit weird to use. especially if you shoot on an angle.
I purchased the para 133, during their annual Sale and love it!!! But I also bought the move 1200, I think it’s a great mix. Profoto doesn’t work to well with it.
@Kenny Pringle let me enjoy my made-up words, lol. I appreciate you watching and commenting, and I look forward to uploading more content you'll hopefully enjoy as much.
@KBrianR my apologies for the delayed response. To be frank, I don't always notice a difference between one diffusion versus two. I know when I've done some controlled testing there is indeed a difference but in real world, there's so many other variables that sometimes the differences are quite negligible. My general rule is that I use both unless I need maximum light output, in which I only use the outer to maximize my light output.
Your test shows at 8 feet the quick octa has a horrible cold spot in the center due to the reflector plate. I'd be curious to see how bad removing the plate would cause a hot spot. Cold spots are no better than hot spots.
I haven't tested that specifically @Texshooter and I don't typically use these modifiers with no diffusion, but my guess is that there would be a hot spot in the center but it wouldn't be as pronounced as the cold spot with the plate.
Thanks for the video. I disagree with your conclusions, but the test speaks for itself. I definitely see a difference in the diffused lighting between the octa and the deep parabolic. There is more of a gradient between the fall off and the deep parabolic throws light more towards the center. Although, if I didn't have a side by side comparison, I really wouldn't notice it. The difference is pretty nominal. I've been trying to research this theory ever since I saw Karl's video as I already own deep parabolic for video continuous lighting. Now I'm leaning more towards the Glow-EZ beauty dish softbox for small studio use. It has a grid too so I'm sure I won't see a ton of difference in quality of light. It's been a bit of a pain trying to mount and dismount the huge 38" deep parabolic in a small space lol
@Slide Wreck Dan serious question, what conclusion do you disagree with? I feel like what you said is what I said, lol. I feel you whole-heartedly on the 38" deep para, it's almost impossible at times in tight spaces and booming it requires some serious counterweight. I still use it though, lol. It's almost like my "throw-away" modifier now; I don't care what happens to it, it would be the modifier I use when there's a chance it can get destroyed haha.
@@AnthonyToglife 6:03 You mentioned the light fall off is a bit different, but the spread is about the same. I think the throw here is visibly different. Depending on the distance on subject and background I think there will be a difference in terms of light quality between the two side by side. Yeah, if I use my 38" para with a C stand it's fine, but anything on a vertical light stand it starts to bend the poles a bit. Pretty sketchy even with sandbags.
@@SlideWreckDan by spread I was referring to the distance the light physically spread. If you count cinderblocks, the physical distance is about the same, that's what I was referring to. When you say throw, that's what I was referring to when I spoke to the light gradation. That being said, I don't think any of this would be noticeable in a real-world situation (e.g. on a face). Maybe slightly on the background if enough of it was in frame, but that's about it.
Using the parapolic softbox just shoot with the inner diffuser only and you'll get the best of both worlds. The inner diffuser is still big enough to have a big diffused light source. And the open space between the inner diffuser and the rim of the parabolic softbox acts as one big honeycomb cell of a honeycomb grid... but with silver lining inside instaed of black, so you don't lose light as much as you would using a normal black honeycomb grid. This works only on parabolic softboxes as the inner diffuser is much bigger than in normal softboxes and the "silver walls" from inner diffuser to the rim is nearly parallel to the flash' direction. Did anybody get what I mean?
Funny, how I see it differently. The light spread in Your examples is clearly (to me) more pleasant with the diffused deep soft box than the diffused octabox (talking about the area where the strongest light in the middle is changing into the "spread" light around the middle area). The tiles are more "defined" and clearer with the deep soft box in that area. That is actually what the "marketing guys" also are telling. Of course this is how the camera sees the reflections on the wall and there seems to be some difference in the color of light between the soft boxes which might affect my conclusion, but I still believe the perceived difference is real. Personally I haven't much used soft boxes in my hobby photography, but am now looking for nicest solution for tabletop still-live photography, why I bumped to Your and Karl's videos. For me, I would never choose the octabox shape as the shape of the reflections of light (were it from the eyes in portrait photography or from the still-life subjects) don't look "realistic". And it seems that most "round" soft boxes are "deep" :-). Don't know why. Anyway, I find it curious that neither of You tested the boxes with grids. Isn't grids widely used to "direct" the light? So my question unanswered is, is there any difference in the spread of light with grids? Thanks for taking the effort to do this video :-)
@Veijo Matikainen I don't see that difference when I look at the RAW files on my PC, but I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing them. I would still argue in a real world setting (shooting portraits, for example), any differences would be negligible at worst, minute at best.
Diffused is double diffused with the reflector plate? Or is it some other combo? What does the light pattern look like with other combinations of diffusion and reflector plate? For example, reflector and outer diffusion only.
@R J Photo IMO the inner diffusion does help a smidge but there's not a significant difference when used with the deflector plate. The deflector plate really helps to eliminate the hotspot in the center, whereas without the inner diffuser would serve as the purpose. I typically will use one or the other, plate or inner diffusion. Both, IMO, only serve to reduce total light output without any sizable gains in light diffusion or softness. Hopefully that answers your question.
Inner diffusion's main job isn't to further soften the light, it's to even out the hotspot. The deflector plate helps more with that but the difference isn't that big without the deflector plate in terms of the hotspot.
To be effective, a parabola needs to be focussed, like a lens. An umbrella style softbox can be focussed, within limits, but if you have a fixed position at the back of the softbox, any effective focussing depends on the size of the flash/strobe. I think the lighter softbox plus a grid would do the job better, for most people.
It does for me @John Summerfield Photographer. The only deep para's I use these days are either my 20" or 28", mainly due to the small size not creating an issue when I boom the modifier.
It really isn’t noticeable on an actual subject though, so in practical use a deep para doesn’t provide a ton of benefit over a regular octa. But it’s certainly noticeably heavier and more cumbersome to use.
Thank you @iDomeanica and I agree 100%, had I known this before buying all of my deep para's, I most certainly wouldn't have bought them. But, is what it is now, lol.
I just purchased a Parabolix 30 modifier because I plan on using it without diffusion and I want the longer throw the light creates. I also want to use the light for paramount or butterfly lighting and I like the added specularity and the more light it puts in the model eyes and the punchier more contrasty light. I have been using a Elinchrom 70 cm deep octa with diffusion as a key light for the last 3-4 years but I plan on replacing it with the parabolix 30.
@David Parker I had to search this modifier because I had never heard of it and it appears these are true parabolic modifiers, yes? The price point is MUCH more pleasing than that of Broncolor or similar, lol. Maybe at some point in the future I'll buy a true parabolic and see if it does anything for me. Thanks for commenting!
You should have tried it with the grid. That greatly reduces the outer spread, creating a more directed beam forming light. If you wanted a beam then use a grid. That's what they're for
I think you just commented to make yourself feel good @Kevr0 because the comparison in this video wasn't about trying to reduce the beam of light, it was comparing two equally-sized modifiers.
You're most welcome @Khairul Azhar Ramil. I'm actually in the process of doing a part two, as one of my subscribers wondered if there would be a difference using a bare bulb or round head.
I don't think the light is the same, I agree that the spread is the same when you diffuse but the distance from the source to the diffuser matters a lot and the deep oct has that characteristic. You said that the light on the deep is a bit softer, and I think that is the benefit of this kind of modifier. Also, if you have a big deep octa you can use it as indirect light, and that is a game-changer. I a sucker for soft light. Thanks for the video!
@Jose Soriano I used the distance from the light itself just to keep things consistent. Obviously in the real world you could put both modifiers equal distance from the front of the modifier so the deep para wouldn't have an advantage. I do think there's a slight difference with the deep para's characteristic that I like but I also think it's so minimal that I wouldn't tell someone to buy the deep para over the regular octa just for that difference. I like my deep para's but they really are a pain sometimes due to their weight and size. Trying to fit a 38" deep para in a tight space is a real struggle sometimes, and when trying to boom it, takes a ton of counter weight. :-)
@@AnthonyToglife I’m talking about the distance between the bulb and the diffuser, on the deep is bigger than the normal Octa. You can noticed this on bigger modifiers
@Jose Soriano maaaan I don't think it makes much of a difference. The softness of the light is determined by the size of the light source relative to your subject. If you use an equal-sized deep para vs an octa, I can't see where the light would be any softer. The light may be slightly more directional but softer, I don't think so. I unfortunately don't have identically-sized deep para's and octa's or else I'd pull the ole mannequin out and test this. At the end of the day though I think photography is subjective and if you see a difference, that's all that matters. My opinion is irrelevant. :-)
@@AnthonyToglife I disagree with you on that. The softness is not only determined by the size of the modifier. The closer the source of the farther the bulb to the diffuser the softer the light. The light needs to travel more before hitting the diffuser. That’s why indirect deep parabolic are very soft since the light travels more before hitting the diffuser
@Jose Soriano if you meter the light and the light hitting the subject is the same intensity, I stand by my notion that the light won't be any softer. Light metering at, for example, f8 is what it is, regardless of how far the actual light is from the subject. If the front of the light is 1ft from the subject for both modifiers and the sizes are identical, the deep para isn't inherently going to make the light softer just because the light is traveling further. In fact, that should technically make it harder. If you move a light source further from your subject, the relative size of the light gets smaller and hence the light gets harder. If you were talking no diffusion, I may agree but with the diffusion, I'm just not buying what you're selling. ;-D Do you have identical-sized modifiers you could do some tests and provide me some sample images?
If desired for portrait the deep will produce a much more natural shape of the light glint in the eyes but probably only necessary to consider for headshots
I do appreciate this video. The video tests, explanation/breakdown is excellent! However, I feel it would be a more accurate test to test these lights on people (skin) instead of a wall to truly test the quality/differences of light between the two.
@Gadget Addy it actually wouldn't be more accurate to use people. Tests are best done when the variables can be controlled; a person won't sit still precisely without moving their head angle/position. As an FYI, I've done these same tests with people and in most cases it's almost impossible to tell the difference, which I mentioned in the video. I have fun doing these kind of tests but in the real world, the differences are usually negligible.
@@AnthonyToglife I'm so happy you responded! Seriously, thank you! Thank you for explaining that to me as well. Makes sense. I have another question that gets asked, but never answered a lot of times. Do you think there'd be a difference between these two with video lights instead of flash? What would be the differences, if any, with an without diffusion? What would be the advantages vs disadvantages of each? Karl Taylor video was also specifically about photography, not videography and he has not answered this question to any of the people who has asked this on his video...at least not that I've seen.
@@5k_addy let me start by saying this - light is light, so there wouldn't be any inherent different in how a particular light functions in the same modifier. In other words, a speedlight and constant light will generally produce the same quality of light within the same modifier. Obviously your output and color temp could vary depending on the power and kelvin of both, but in general, the light would be about the same. Do I think there'd be any differences, I do, actually, but marginal. When I did my testing on people, the gradation from highlights to shadows was a bit smoother in some images with the deep para, BUT, I had to look for them. Would I have been able to tell the difference in looking at the two images side-by-side without knowing which was which, I honestly don't think I could of. The thing about some of these things is that you have to look so hard to spot differences that it just isn't a practical difference. It's akin to pixel-peeping; sure, you may be able to spot differences but who (with any sense) pixel-peeps every single image they shoot?! Where this is a difference in video versus still is that in video the position of your head and body can change quite a bit because you're moving/talking and I do think there could be minor differences in using the more-directional deep para, but again I think it'd be so marginal it would be outweighed by the weight and cumbersome-ness of deep paras. I use my 48" deep para because it's a modifier I don't care about it getting damaged or whatever. It's basically a throw-away modifier and will give me an excuse to buy the regular octa version when the deep para dies, lol. I frankly wouldn't recommend anyone buy a deep para over a regular octa, especially in the larger sizes. My 48" is stupid heavy and seeing that it doesn't really yield me a noticeable gain in light quality (even creatively) and it takes a little more juice from my flash to fill it, it just isn't worth it, even for video IMHO. Oh, I just realized I missed a part of your question, without diffusion there would definitely be a noticeable difference between the two. The beam of light will definitely be more narrow with the deep para, so if you wanted to control the light hitting the background (you could use a grid but) the deep para without diffusion would be the clear winner. But, then you're dealing with a harder light source so there's trade-offs.
@@AnthonyToglife I meant to respond a lot sooner! But thank you so much for this information! You saved me so much time, money, and countless hassles. I can't thank you enough for breaking this down for me. VERY helpful! I'm sure you will continue to help others, but for me personally, you broke down this better than Adorama. Thanks again!
I do feel like the deep parabolic has a better controlled light spread. The octabox feels like it has a hot spot. The difference is small though and maybe not worth the size disadvantage.
There absolutely are some minor differences @Andreas Hoffmann but like you mentioned, the size and weight still makes the deep para a bad option most times for me. In studio - no problems at all, on location - that deep para is way more headache than it's worth!
@Kingdom Pictures and Media most definitely, sometimes heavier is better! I boom my lights often and in those instances, heavier works against me most of the time. What size modifiers are you using, out of curiosity?
@@kingpixmedia I just used my 38" deep para the other day and although yes, it definitely works better in wind in terms of weight, it was a big problem with the AD400 - I was struggling to keep it angled like I wanted it. The wind with the weight of the modifier was sometimes too much for the little bracket on the AD400 to handle.
I think you missed the point here Anthony. Parabolic softboxes as described by Karl Taylor have a focusable light that is usually more accurate than what you show here-a parabolic reflector and a parabolic softbox. All you are comparing are two shoot thru reflectors that allow the user to put in diffusion layers to soften the light. A true parabolic modifyer attempts to limit the "hot spot" by the user focusing the light back into the umbrella like modifyer to help eliminate or make the "hot spot" larger. That umbrella-like modifyer is designed to throw that light further and more accurate.
@Bob Leverone Photography with all due respect, did you even watch my video? I said at the minute mark I never thought or expected deep parabolic modifiers to be or function as actual parabolics. My video was intended to focus on the light property of a deep para versus a regular octabox to see if there were any differences at all, AKA 100% marketing BS or only partially BS. I didn't miss any point Mr. Leverone. ;-)
Had a camera question. This guy is selling thisSony a77 DSLR body, no scratches on sensor, still has plastic on tilting LCD - 18-70mm, f3.5-5.6 official Sony lens - 50mm prime f1.8 official Sony lens - 35-80mm macro Minolta lens - 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 Tamron telephoto zoom lens - two batteries and battery chargers - 32GB SD card - wireless shutter remote - micro USB cable - micro HDMI cable. Sorry for the long comment. Does this seem worth it to you? $600 bucks
thanks, man appreciate it. I keep going back and forth on cameras. I love The Sony brand. but I hear great things about Cannon. I currently own a Nikon p900 pretty much a recreational camera with massive zoom.
Thanks Anthony. It would be good to see a test with a tube based light (like a Godox AD300, AD600) . The speed light is going to be too directional to get the full effect of a deep parabolic (DP). Overall DP looks better to me - and in real life with an AD300 it works great. A inward facing parabolic (like the Broncolor) with a focusing rod takes it to the next level.
Very interesting point @Paul’s Cinema Reel! What if I use the bare bulb on the AD200? I have an AD400 but lugging that thing to a parking garage and setting it up would be a chore for this, lol.
Side note, I do think the deflector plate would help minimize or eliminate the issue with directionality of the speedlight but I’m still up for trying it with something different.
@@AnthonyToglife lol absolutely true. I just have a few AD300s and AD200's myself - that's about as much weight as I want to carry:) But yes the AD200 with the bulb attachment would be a very good test too. I actually ordered the deep parabolic 34" from Adorama as well - that's how I came across you video. I've seen some tests with the AD300 and it looks pretty good. Will run some tests myself when it comes in. I just followed you on Instagram (Paul Singh). Best regards.
@@paulscinemareel5671 you have GREAT work sir! Very tasteful and artistic, I love to see this level of work in that genre. I will definitely do the test with the bare bulb this weekend some time.
@@AnthonyToglife love your work as well. Greatly appreciated ! Thank you ! I should get my DP next week and will give a try soon. Was also thinking that something like a Stofen diffuser on the speedlight would spread the light a bit too. In some cases where space is tight and I need minimal light I revert to a Godox V1 but have the round (half-dome) diffuser on it . Quite honestly - not bad at all when using it with a 12x36 strip box.
@kennypringle4580 I like that you use your modifiers in different variations and actually put thought into it, instead of just doing what the internet says you should do, haha.
Super helpful analysis. Thanks Anthony! I often shoot deep parabolic for two reasons... the first is the catch light. For me round handily beats a specular stop sign. The second? I found that if I push the diffusion back into the parabolic I can indeed narrow the spread front diffusion creates. That versatility comes in handy when I'm trying to control fall-off.
@nomadherper super helpful comment! Thanks for providing your insight, I very much appreciate it!
I just love these tests. Thanks for doing and sharing them. It’s a tremendous service to the photography community.
@Jim Worthington me too, lol. I'll definitely be doing more of these this year!
Great video! They’re definitely heavy and take up a lot of horizontal space. I wanted an easy setup option but, I’ve realized that a DEEP para wasn’t necessary for my needs. I mostly bought it for versatility but, it’s weight is a big issue.
@HW Photography weight is the main reason I don't use mine much, especially on location. For the minimal variance you get in light output and quality, it usually isn't worth the hassle of setting it up, counter weighting it, and having a stand and light durable enough to withstand the weight. I've since replaced all the sizes of my deep paras with regular octas.
Solid Video man. Realistic and clear to understand. I appreciate you taking the time to make it.
@Fueled Iowa you are most welcome! :-)
I think we've all purchased equipment that did live up to our expectations. Thank you for dropping the knowledge.
@darkreigncometh ain't that the truth! Live and learn haha. Appreciate you watching!
This test was fantastic!! I'm looking at going with the EZ 36" with diffusion. Been using the Godox 24"-fold-out square modifier for years. Does not look like I need to worry about deep parabolic at this point! Thanks again
The 36” is my go-to these days! Definitely forgo the deep para’s, there’s not enough difference in the light output or pattern to justify the added weight, especially once you move up to the larger sizes!
OOoooh I'm only 20 seconds in and I'm already hitting subscribe.
Thank you for delving into this!
Well that settles it @Chloey A.M., I have to keep making content like this so your subscribership is worth your while! ;-) Thank you for the support.
Yess! Thank you so much,@@AnthonyToglife
I only bought the 48” deep para from glow because it was bigger than my 43” beauty dish. But the light quality is nearly identical with the baffle and diffusers in. The only benefit is being able to get a little farther away when I’m using Rembrandt lighting. One of these days they’re going to make a 7’ beauty dish and then I’ll finally be happy. 🤣
That would be a big beauty dish @stuffwarrensez LOL, but yeah, the marginal gains from the deep octa are definitely outweighed by the size and weight. My deep para's are pretty much my "throw away" modifiers now.
Good honest review. I too was on the fence of getting a Deep para but after watching this I don't think I need one. I've got the Glow 45 degree long throw if I need to concentrate my light. Thanks for the video!
In hindsight @Edgar Cabrera I likely wouldn't have ordered as many deep para's as I did if I knew this info back then. Sure, the light spread is a little smoother with the deep para but I really haven't noticed the difference much in real world use versus aiming it at a cinderblock wall. Thanks for stopping by!
Was about to pull the trigger on a 48" deep parabolic softbox after watching Karl's video 2 days back but you just saved me from doing it.. I guess I can still achieve the same focused beam of light from my 48" octobox using a diffuser and grid.. Thanks alot man..waiting for another podcast with you and Ryan..
@josh McDzz if I knew then what I knew now, I wouldn't have bought mine. For my style of shooting there really is minimal, minimal benefits in using the deep para, and a lot more negatives that makes it impractical. I usually use it when I'm in a location where it could possibly be damaged (heavy winds or I'm going to put it somewhere precarious); that way my feelings won't be hurt if something does happen to it. :-D
exactly. i noticed using diffusion and rid on dish softboxes give similar results as deep parabolics.
Thank you Anthony for that analysis. It definitely helps!
You are most welcome @guidinglightfilms! Thanks for stopping by!
Thank you! A ez glow parabolic soft box came with my AD600 and I didn't understand its purpose so haven't used it. I like the gradient with the parabolic vs. the octa in your tests though, so I'll try it out. Your video has been the only helpful one on this topic, thank you for your time.
@monsterwerksvideo I agree, I like the gradient from the deep para more, but I will say sometimes the deep para is a pain to work with, especially outdoors. But I love the modifier and use it pretty regularly. Thank you for watching and for the kind words, it's much appreciated.
Very well done!! this shows exactly that with diffusion, it really doesn't matter how deep you modifier is, the light spread once the light passes through last layer of diffusion will be the same. Excellent display! This test also showed how the outer shape of the modifier will influence shape of falloff. So takeaway is, if you did want to use a modifier with no diffusion, or single layer of internal diffusion... then depth of modfier will have an influence of spread of light. However, if you always use outer diffusion material, then there is negligible difference, and for ease of use, it would be best to use a more compact style. Thanks Anthony
Thank you @Photo, I very much appreciate the comment.
Thank you so much, bro! I like your serious attitude in doing the serious experiment and test. This is so helpful. I have seen what I hope to see, and I have made up my mind.
This is music to my ears @claudemusic3599, this is why I make these sorts of videos. I appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. Good day to ya.
What's up Man. Man I have been busy .gotta catch up on some videos. Been looking at some better lighting. Nice video man .i learn something from every one of your videos.
@V WorldWide definitely been a minute since I've heard from ya. Glad to have you back. :-)
Thank you for making these tests,so informative
You are most welcome @Infamism WorldWild, I appreciate you watching.
I just ordered a 38 deep parabolic. Great Information and video. Thank you 💪🏽
@Photography by Dash I definitely enjoy using mine, I use it all the time, but it's heavy especially if you boom it. I'm likely going to buy a 48" octa for times when I'm outdoors and need something lighter and more portable.
@@AnthonyToglife Good to know. Once again thank you for the information!
Man this is quality information I can't wait to say I was here before your channel blows up youndeserrve it thanks for the info
@Art_by _Adrian2 thank you kindly! If I would be more consistent with posting, maybe my channel would be bigger lol. At the end of the day I do this to help people, so all is good either way. I appreciate you watching and commenting.
@@AnthonyToglife absolutely and you definitely should have a much bigger channel I'm still trying to figure out which I should get lol it's going to be glow I just don't know if it should be the deep or the regular
A very revealing comparison. Thanks so much for making this video.
I'm glad you found this video helpful @Lyman Copps. I do plan to do more vids like this, as this is the type of stuff I love, lol. #technerd
Great Video, the test really helped me understand the difference between both lights.
Happy to hear that @octaviowarnock-graham6102! Side note, your handle has to be the longest one I've seen yet. ;-)
Shooting outside, i think the Glow ParaSnap is definitely the way to go.
I did think the parabolic might act like a long throw reflector and therefore increase the light output although it did look a bit brighter.
Great video as alway brother!!!
🔥🔥🔥🔥
I’ll have to test to see if the deep para throws light further, in usage I don’t know that I’ve seen that, but I haven’t paid much attention. I appreciate you commenting and making me think. 🙂
Thanks for a really great tutorial, Anthony. I'm glad I caught this before I make my purchase today! I'm a subscriber.
Very much appreciated @Charles William. I'm glad this video was helpful. Out of curiosity, what are you looking to buy??
Thanks for doing all of this work for us!!! I understand that you are comparing the two types of softbox, but what I notice is how smoothly your light falls off while using a speedlight and the deflector plate in both modifiers. I'm an old guy still clinging to my monobloc's. More and more though, I'm finding use for speedlights. Great test and well presented. Subscribed!
Thank you so much @Rick P and welcome! Speedlights and flashes like the AD200 are definitely where it’s at, can’t be the portability.
Beautifully illustrated and explained. Thanks
@ntRealty - Montenegro Real Estate Professionals thank you very much! I appreciate your kind words!
Not bad though- considering deep para acts like a large reflector and gives you more room to keep it further from your subject (without diffuser). Additionally you get better shaped catchlights :) Well done and thanks for doing the comparison!
You're most welcome @rohin2k, thank you for watching and commenting!
Thanks for this Anthony, very well explained!
You're most welcome @Daniel Sarli.
Your video confirms my suspicions. Thanks!
You're most welcome @Clarence Conner, glad it was helpful.
definitely needed this info. thanks for the demo!
You are most welcome @Pagpapaitim! Thank you for watching and commenting.
Dope video! suuuuuper helpful! what flash did you use?
Thank you @Al Blount DotCom! I used a Yongnuo YN-560III, which I still have and use to this day from time to time.
Thanks man! I was just about to pull the trigger on the 38" Glow deep para for my AD300. I've been wondering about the weight though. Your test really helps, so now I'm going to think it through a little bit more.
@Tom Jamison it's definitely a heavier modifier and although I don't really have a problem when using it, I would certainly choose a similar size regular octabox over it if I had it at my disposal. But, I do like having the versatility of using it without diffusion if I'm going for a more edgy look so I'm still happy I have it. And sometimes I prefer the round catchlight versus the octagonal shape.
Great video
Thanks for sharing
I personally have not used them but a lot of the glow products look bulky.
I jumped into the profoto system and their octa’s are great. I do a lot of high school sports and I can pack light and still have exactly what I need.
I also live in a mountain town and those things would be sails on most days.
How does it do in the wind for you?
@Karl Mullings I would say the Glow modifiers aren't any more bulky than other Bowens mount modifiers, but that Bowens mount in general is definitely bulky. It's very difficult to travel with most of my Glow modifiers, unfortunately. With it being super windy here in Vegas many days, I tend to do the opposite of what most people would think, and I use bigger octa's. The bigger size, maybe surprisingly, handles better in the wind than my smaller modifiers. Of course I have to weight down the stands regardless.
I do think I'm going to invest in some more portable gear that I can use when I travel, or just need to pack light for a local gig.
I was thinking about buying one of these before Karl's video, appreciate the video further confirming what Karl said. I rarely if ever shoot undiffused so I wouldn't benefit from a deep parabolic.
@Jose Lara yeah, I wouldn't buy any more deep para's myself, and the ones I have to kinda use as "throw away" modifiers, don't really care if they get damaged or whatever.
@@AnthonyToglife I just ordered a 24” beauty dish, I got silver I feel like I should have gotten white though. I’ll probably order a white one as well lol
@@holdmyown32 ya know, I personally don't see a HUGE difference between the two when they're both diffused. I know people say the silver produces a more specular light and very faintly I can see it at times, but I think having the silver offers more versatility (can shoot with no diffusion for a punchy, specular light). But it doesn't hurt to have both really.
Interesting tests, Im curious if you could get the same results as the parabolic from the octabox with a grid and how putting a grid on both of them affects the light. Maybe in that case the octabox would prove to be more versatile..
@Anastasia Ray I'm thinking a grid would neutralize the two and there wouldn't be a discernible difference between them, but I'll have to play around with them and see.
thanks for taking the time to do this testing. i do think you should have said more about how a deep para is by definition ADJUSTABLE and when it's not (as is the case for all the cheap ones trying to capitalize on the word "para"), they are simply heavier softboxes. period. similar to how the word "beauty dish" has now been applied to softboxes, as they are not true beauty dishes that throw hard lighting. at least in this case they are usually lighter than a real beauty dish :-). i think the key point to all this is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. there are NO "do everything" modifiers, no matter what the company decides to call them :-)
@hdrsmit I appreciate your comment. The intent of my video wasn't really to outline the specifics of either modifier, it was specifically to look at the quality of light from the two, because I bought deep para's with the thought that the light would be more directional and smaller spread. Nonetheless, I welcome feedback like this.
Thanks for this great video. The use of inner diffuser and strobe introduce new variables but probably your conclusions would remain the same.
I’ve actually tested these modifiers with the inner diffuser and it has near no impact on the light when combined with the deflector plate. Without the deflector plate, it does help to reduce the center hotspot. So these days I just use the plate and outer only. The inner diffusers on the Glow modifiers are such a pain to unbutton, I’m glad it worked out this way.
I just saw Karl video first then saw your video 2mins later!!! New sub bro!!!!!!!!!
@desean mayes appreciate it my man. More vids to come!
Thanks for doing this test and sharing, much appreciated
You are most welcome @Brian Nett. Thank you for watching and commenting!
@@AnthonyToglife I ended up getting an octabox based on your comparison thanks again
Thank you for this! I was just looking at a parabolic or a strip box as my next purchase (I already own an octabox) this definitely helped a ton!
This is what I like to hear @Tommy Daynjer, I appreciate you watching and commenting, and I'm glad the video was helpful.
Hi Anthony, Great stuff. I watched the Karl Taylor vid some time ago. Now maybe I'm confusing it with another karl taylor one. This is one where the light was reversed and pointed into the parabolic modifier and could be adjusted anywhere from all the way in to all the way out. He also made the point that if it were a true Parabola the bounce would be very specific and different. I have a 4' cheetah with the adjustable device that they call a chopstick. Heavy but I love the options it provides.
@Bill Johnson I believe all true parabolics have the light facing inward; it's necessary to be able to "zoom" the light. I personally have not seen a deep parabolic modifier that was marketed as being a true parabola or functioning as such, so while I can somewhat understand his frustration with the marketing, they really aren't marketing it as a true parabolic. But still, although I like my deep para's, they're heavy and most times the light quality doesn't offset the hassle of using a heavy modifier, especially on location or outdoors.
@@AnthonyToglife That makes sense.
my biggest takeaway is that I can have my light (28" para) 5 feet away from the model before I get light spill on the ground...which will come in handy when the ambient light is at a minimum
@deltadave44 good takeaway. ;-) Of course the height of the light plays a factor but definitely good thinking outside the (soft)box. :-D
Great video and as you mentioned, the good thing with the Glow series of modifiers, you aren't charged an "upcharge" for one or the other. I wish I had known about the Glow brand a couple of years ago when I purchased the Westcott brand - could have saved some major coins. But I did just purchase some glow strip boxes and love that fact that you don't have to pay extra for the plate or the egg crates. I do like my Westcott Rapid Boxes, but had I known...IJS
Yeah, I got lucky in that I found the Glow line right at the start of the pandemic when I was looking to expand my modifier gear set, then I went crazy and bought way too many, lol. I was absolutely floored to see what some of these other companies are charging for something as simple as a cheap fabric grid, it's insane.
@@AnthonyToglife LOL same here. I went from zero Glow modifiers to 5 in just one day.
Bold and daring video. Loys of hard work, i like it! Subcribed !
@WednesdayRaven thank you kindly, very much appreciate you watching and commenting. These types of videos definitely take a lot of time and effort to make. But, I definitely plan to do more vids like this.
Hello, maybe you will be able to advise me: I am looking for a modifier that will give me a wide, slightly contrasting light. I tested parabolic umbrellas (unfortunately I will not fit a real parabola in my) and the light was too contrasting, and I do not know if putting a diffuser on such an umbrella would make it equal to a softbox. is it better to buy a larger softbox? I'm making (amateur)fashion/ portrait photos of the whole character
@Adam B let's dive into this a little bit, what causes contrast in lighting? Specularity and hardness, and both of those things are caused by either small or low-diffused light sources. I personally think an umbrella with a sock (diffusion material over the opening of the umbrella) provides a LOT of flexibility (and portability) in achieving a contrasty look. Silver interior modifiers will also help to add a little punch. The umbrellas I have are great at providing a punchy light even when using them with a sock. Something like this (www.adorama.com/gluel41s.html) would be great at achieving the look you're describing. Can you provide me some sample photos of what you've tested thus far?
The one thing I noticed about my 38 para is when you keep the grid on it the images seem more contrasty.
@Wallace Barnett a grid will do that. I personally don't care much for the contrasty look of grids so I don't use them unless I absolutely need to control the spread of light.
Very interesting. I think where things become interesting is when you introduce fresnel lenses into the equation , especially larger ones that are massive that would cover the entire diameter of the modifier. Crazy these don’t exist as they would significantly reduce spill and maintain power output. However…. I do wonder how much light is attenuated as a result of the reflections inside the modifier and as distance increases. Dan Rojas of Green Power Science made one softbox using a rectangular TV fresnel- the science checks out- and the results were stunning.
Well, there's definitely a noticeable difference in light pattern, quality, and softness when using true parabolic modifiers, especially ones with the movable rod, so I'm sure adding a fresnel to the mix would have a noticeable difference as well.
Love this! As a beginner this helps me decide where my money goes. I always shoot with a diffused modifier so I’d rather choose the easier and lighter weight modifier. The only time I’d see a benefit for deep parabolic is if I really needed throw, which means undiffused. Could be helpful with ultra wide shots where the flash needs to be way off frame. SUBSCRIBED!
Absolutely @Laurence, the lighter weight makes a BIG difference, especially if you boom, and you're also right that if you need to throw that undiffused light, the deep para would be the better option. I appreciate you watching and commenting, and most meaningfully, subscribing. Thank you!
Good proof of concept. If the diffusion screen is truly effective (no hot spots) then what's going on behind the screen is irrelevant.
True indeed! 💪🏾
Excellent video Anthony. You definitely answered my questions. But what if you use an umbrella ( 48/60 inch) silver interior with a diffuser, how does this compare?
Thank you @michael lekas. I don't own any silver-lined umbrella's so I can't test this but I honestly don't feel it would differ much from a regular octabox, especially at that size.
But Anthony, doesn't the eggcrate attachment that comes with the deep parabolic softbox make a difference with regard to light spread?
It would @Milton Welch, but without re-watching my vid I'm not sure why you're asking that question...
Beautifully explained!👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽great video, thank you💯
Thank you so much @Krishna Prasas Khandige, I appreciate the kind words!
Thank you so much @Krishna Prasas Khandige, I appreciate the kind words!
Hey Anthony, Godox just released a parabolic reflector that is a literal copy of Broncolor’s Para series. You might want to check it out.
I've seen it and have watched some vids on it, looks to be pretty solid but way too pricey for my needs. Appreciate the heads up!
I just saw the Karl Taylor video. I saw a huge different in b/w the octa and para w/ diffusion. His own images showed me I should buy a para. I don't understand how there wasn't an obvious difference in the lighting people saw. I wish this video had been on a model's face.
Well @Josh McCosh I would say you’re in the minority if you’re referring to the diffused comparisons 😉
Either way, both of our videos served their purpose - they helped you come to an informed decision. I appreciate you commenting.
@@AnthonyToglife I was glad to see both videos. I love seeing what other photographers have to say about the craft.
My conclusion is that the point @Karl Taylor is trying to make in his videos about Broncolor parabolic modifiers is that they provide specific QUALITY of light on a subject lit by them. Your video, on the other hand, shows how modifiers focus/spread the light, which is a great addition to the general knowledge about how a different shape and/or structure of a modifier affects the light.
I'm still having a hard time deciding what shape, size and type my next light modifier will be, but your video made this decision one step closer to make ;)
As it comes to those "so called" parabolic modifiers, I guess it is more about them having more edges (typically 16 vs. 8 in standard octaboxes) - the best example to prove that it's a marketing catchword is the "parabolic umbrella" that in reality has nothing to do with a parabola, those are just more rounded (vide 16 edges) ;)
@Daniel Żurakowski I dunno man, I think he really hates modifiers labeled as parabolic when they're not true parabolic lolol.
@@AnthonyToglife Might be so ;) but still - as I've seen someone else's video comparing Broncolor Para with Briese Focus and something from Profoto (if I remember it right) - those light modifiers (Broncolor Para) really outperform everything else in terms of the light quality on a model (and of course - everything is a matter of personal taste, after all ;) ).
@@danielzurakowski6358 is Broncolor paying you?! ;-) Just kidding, it ultimately does come down to personal taste.
You could shoot the deeper one without diffusion if you wanted, plus catchlights will be a bit rounder… is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not.
Having owned all the modifiers I do, I would say not worth it @Paul Vaccaro Thereal111t, lol.
Thanks for your video and data points. My take away is the para w/ diffuser has a softer drop off (which I like), but is heavier and outputs less light than the octa. Do you have any opinion or sample shots of a white versus silver para?
@Dil R I would say your takeaway is solid. I unfortunately don't have any modifiers with white lining as I like the versatility of silver.
thank you so much. i find this test very useful
You are most welcome @Georgie Uris, I'm glad you found this vid useful.
The goal of a softboxes is homogeneity at the front diffusion panel (parabolic reflectors goal is not homogeneity). Even light. No hotspot. It seems a deeper profile would accomplish this easier and accomplishing this in a shallower profile would need better geometry. I'd like to see a test of how well different diffusers accomplish this. That is what determines how good a softboxes is and if it's performing as it's meant to. Thanks for your hard work!
@R J Photo although I agree with what you've said, I would argue the geometry of the modifier would play a much bigger role in homogeneity than the front diffuser. I think even the best diffusion material out there would still suffer from hotspots when used on a poorly designed modifier.
@@AnthonyToglife Ahh, yes. My statement wasn't about the diffuser's front panel material it was different diffusers meaning different octoboxes/softboxes as light diffusers. I could have been more succinct. I expect an expensive broncolor softbox to diffuse light better than a glow diffuser. I expect they put more resources into the product to ensure that the light output at the front panel is homogeneous as their discerning customers would demand. And glow, less so ( Fyi-I buy Glow). I'd love to see a test of that. Would you, too? You rock for getting back to me quickly!
@@rockj8197 ya know, I think there's a line between quality and name tax. Take for example Apple (and disclaimer, I'm an Apple user), but their products, albeit good, are arguably overpriced for what you get. But the designs are modern and the ecosystem is stellar so we pay the "Apple Tax" nonetheless. I find Broncolor and Profoto and even Westcott to fall into this category. I don't think their products are that much superior to a brand like Glow. Their products are likely more durable and the quality may be marginally better, but I personally don't think one would see THAT much of a difference. Of course people who use those higher-end products may disagree, the way die-hard Apple fans will defend any and everything Apple does. It's all subjective I guess and whatever works for each person is what works. I would indeed like to see the comparisons you speak of, maybe I need to convince Broncolor and Profoto to send me some free stuff lolol.
@@AnthonyToglife , I think it may also be that, by the time photogs are billing enough for their business to afford Broncolor & Briese, they've gotten *so very good at creativity, working according to the client's brief, knowing what they want in hairmakeupwardrobeaccessoriesmodels, set design, background, color theory, lighting, using kickers, hairlights, key, & fill, feathering the light, knowing what contrast & falloff they want*, etc, that the high-end equipment complements their skill level. [Also, photogs doing advertorials/sponsored videos for Broncolor & Briese aren't mentioning how important the retoucher's contribution is to the final images]. (Just an idea).
Hey great video…..one question was it single or double diffused ?
Thank you @Antaeus Stewart! I’m pretty sure single diffused with the plate, because that’s all the octa could do.
My guess is that a parabolic softbox distrubute the light more evenly. It would probably be more of a difference without the reflector in front of the beam of light. This would perhaps make a difference if the softbox is put close to the subject. A way to test this would be to take photos into the softboxes at low exposure.
@Svamp Träsk without the reflector there would most definitely be a hotspot in the center and the light spread likely would change. I personally think the light spread/falloff is a TAD smoother with the deep para with diffusion, but I really think it's splitting hairs.
I paused at 4:31, stared for 10 seconds, then laughed my butt off. Being a musician, we too obsess over split-hair differences that we never feel settled on until we purchase the more popular, higher priced of the available choices.
@DR-VideoProducers the struggle is real! Haha. Thanks for watching!
Love ur work! Keep it up! All the way from Asia!
@jaderiver I very much appreciate your comment, thank you very much!!
Very practical review. Thanks
Thank you @gerald hewes, I appreciate you watching and commenting.
Thank you for this upload.
You are most welcome @Earl Muncy!
I have a Glow Deep Parabolic softbox. The torque certainly is troublesome because the center of gravity is farther from the axis of rotation, but is it actually heavier?
@Daniel Bowers close to a 2lb difference between the Glow 48" deep para and 48" octa. Equates to almost double the weight, which when adding in the torque you mentioned above, it's quite a significant difference.
NEEEDDED this video my guy. thank you
You're most welcome @Mr. Continuity.
Very informative, thanks for this video
Thank you @lecouriel lecouriel, I appreciate you watching and commenting.
i got a broncolor 222 recently. with the diffuser it is like an octa, probably with no hotspot if you defocus. without a diffuser i have to learn how to use it. if you defocus all the light is on the outer edges of the para so it is a bit weird to use. especially if you shoot on an angle.
@Ray Valdex Photography ohhhh so you spendin' that big money! ;-)
@@AnthonyToglife it was on sale. even though i had to spend a fortune just to get it to work right since i have profoto, then a godox
I purchased the para 133, during their annual Sale and love it!!! But I also bought the move 1200, I think it’s a great mix. Profoto doesn’t work to well with it.
@@gentleman0678 I got a godox ad1200. Seems to work better now
I like your videos and the way you explain your topics. I’ve only seen 2 but I’ll subscribe to you now. Parabolickness is not a word😂😂😂👍
@Kenny Pringle let me enjoy my made-up words, lol. I appreciate you watching and commenting, and I look forward to uploading more content you'll hopefully enjoy as much.
Anthony.. any thoughts on inner diffusion panel vs both diffusion panels with a deep para box?
@KBrianR my apologies for the delayed response. To be frank, I don't always notice a difference between one diffusion versus two. I know when I've done some controlled testing there is indeed a difference but in real world, there's so many other variables that sometimes the differences are quite negligible. My general rule is that I use both unless I need maximum light output, in which I only use the outer to maximize my light output.
Your test shows at 8 feet the quick octa has a horrible cold spot in the center due to the reflector plate. I'd be curious to see how bad removing the plate would cause a hot spot. Cold spots are no better than hot spots.
I haven't tested that specifically @Texshooter and I don't typically use these modifiers with no diffusion, but my guess is that there would be a hot spot in the center but it wouldn't be as pronounced as the cold spot with the plate.
Thanks for the video. I disagree with your conclusions, but the test speaks for itself. I definitely see a difference in the diffused lighting between the octa and the deep parabolic. There is more of a gradient between the fall off and the deep parabolic throws light more towards the center. Although, if I didn't have a side by side comparison, I really wouldn't notice it. The difference is pretty nominal. I've been trying to research this theory ever since I saw Karl's video as I already own deep parabolic for video continuous lighting. Now I'm leaning more towards the Glow-EZ beauty dish softbox for small studio use. It has a grid too so I'm sure I won't see a ton of difference in quality of light. It's been a bit of a pain trying to mount and dismount the huge 38" deep parabolic in a small space lol
@Slide Wreck Dan serious question, what conclusion do you disagree with? I feel like what you said is what I said, lol. I feel you whole-heartedly on the 38" deep para, it's almost impossible at times in tight spaces and booming it requires some serious counterweight. I still use it though, lol. It's almost like my "throw-away" modifier now; I don't care what happens to it, it would be the modifier I use when there's a chance it can get destroyed haha.
@@AnthonyToglife 6:03 You mentioned the light fall off is a bit different, but the spread is about the same. I think the throw here is visibly different. Depending on the distance on subject and background I think there will be a difference in terms of light quality between the two side by side.
Yeah, if I use my 38" para with a C stand it's fine, but anything on a vertical light stand it starts to bend the poles a bit. Pretty sketchy even with sandbags.
@@SlideWreckDan by spread I was referring to the distance the light physically spread. If you count cinderblocks, the physical distance is about the same, that's what I was referring to. When you say throw, that's what I was referring to when I spoke to the light gradation. That being said, I don't think any of this would be noticeable in a real-world situation (e.g. on a face). Maybe slightly on the background if enough of it was in frame, but that's about it.
Using the parapolic softbox just shoot with the inner diffuser only and you'll get the best of both worlds.
The inner diffuser is still big enough to have a big diffused light source. And the open space between the inner diffuser and the rim of the parabolic softbox acts as one big honeycomb cell of a honeycomb grid... but with silver lining inside instaed of black, so you don't lose light as much as you would using a normal black honeycomb grid.
This works only on parabolic softboxes as the inner diffuser is much bigger than in normal softboxes and the "silver walls" from inner diffuser to the rim is nearly parallel to the flash' direction.
Did anybody get what I mean?
I get what you mean @Marcel Katz but the purpose of the video was really to see if the diffused light was more directional, which IMO it's negligible.
Funny, how I see it differently. The light spread in Your examples is clearly (to me) more pleasant with the diffused deep soft box than the diffused octabox (talking about the area where the strongest light in the middle is changing into the "spread" light around the middle area). The tiles are more "defined" and clearer with the deep soft box in that area. That is actually what the "marketing guys" also are telling. Of course this is how the camera sees the reflections on the wall and there seems to be some difference in the color of light between the soft boxes which might affect my conclusion, but I still believe the perceived difference is real.
Personally I haven't much used soft boxes in my hobby photography, but am now looking for nicest solution for tabletop still-live photography, why I bumped to Your and Karl's videos. For me, I would never choose the octabox shape as the shape of the reflections of light (were it from the eyes in portrait photography or from the still-life subjects) don't look "realistic". And it seems that most "round" soft boxes are "deep" :-). Don't know why.
Anyway, I find it curious that neither of You tested the boxes with grids. Isn't grids widely used to "direct" the light? So my question unanswered is, is there any difference in the spread of light with grids? Thanks for taking the effort to do this video :-)
@Veijo Matikainen I don't see that difference when I look at the RAW files on my PC, but I didn't spend a lot of time analyzing them. I would still argue in a real world setting (shooting portraits, for example), any differences would be negligible at worst, minute at best.
Diffused is double diffused with the reflector plate? Or is it some other combo? What does the light pattern look like with other combinations of diffusion and reflector plate? For example, reflector and outer diffusion only.
@R J Photo IMO the inner diffusion does help a smidge but there's not a significant difference when used with the deflector plate. The deflector plate really helps to eliminate the hotspot in the center, whereas without the inner diffuser would serve as the purpose. I typically will use one or the other, plate or inner diffusion. Both, IMO, only serve to reduce total light output without any sizable gains in light diffusion or softness. Hopefully that answers your question.
Inner diffusion's main job isn't to further soften the light, it's to even out the hotspot. The deflector plate helps more with that but the difference isn't that big without the deflector plate in terms of the hotspot.
To be effective, a parabola needs to be focussed, like a lens. An umbrella style softbox can be focussed, within limits, but if you have a fixed position at the back of the softbox, any effective focussing depends on the size of the flash/strobe.
I think the lighter softbox plus a grid would do the job better, for most people.
It does for me @John Summerfield Photographer. The only deep para's I use these days are either my 20" or 28", mainly due to the small size not creating an issue when I boom the modifier.
Thanks a lot sir 🙏 total details. Love it
You are most welcome! Thank you for watching and commenting.
Just purchased an ad600 from adorama and it came with a 48” glow ez lock parabolic box
@bigbrooklyn25 you should be able to create some AMAZING images with that setup!!
I think the deep light is more softer than regular octa which is good for portrait
interesting....great job brother!!!! 😍😍😍😍
Thank you so much @TheSunnySuttons, much appreciated!
The additional grid helps narrow, I look forward to deeper grids that narrow diffused light.
Now there's something, deeper grids, or options for different degree grids like you have with hard shell reflectors.
Appreciate the scientific approach :-)
;-)
I think were forgetting about the smoother gradiation that the deep para provides. Thats what you're looking for in a modifier.
It really isn’t noticeable on an actual subject though, so in practical use a deep para doesn’t provide a ton of benefit over a regular octa. But it’s certainly noticeably heavier and more cumbersome to use.
Super informative info and I really feel like I learned how much I wasted buying a deep parabolic lol
Thank you @iDomeanica and I agree 100%, had I known this before buying all of my deep para's, I most certainly wouldn't have bought them. But, is what it is now, lol.
I just purchased a Parabolix 30 modifier because I plan on using it without diffusion and I want the longer throw the light creates. I also want to use the light for paramount or butterfly lighting and I like the added specularity and the more light it puts in the model eyes and the punchier more contrasty light. I have been using a Elinchrom 70 cm deep octa with diffusion as a key light for the last 3-4 years but I plan on replacing it with the parabolix 30.
@David Parker I had to search this modifier because I had never heard of it and it appears these are true parabolic modifiers, yes? The price point is MUCH more pleasing than that of Broncolor or similar, lol. Maybe at some point in the future I'll buy a true parabolic and see if it does anything for me. Thanks for commenting!
@@AnthonyToglifeI have the parabolix 45, the hard-yet-soft light it produces is LOVELY
You should have tried it with the grid. That greatly reduces the outer spread, creating a more directed beam forming light. If you wanted a beam then use a grid. That's what they're for
I think you just commented to make yourself feel good @Kevr0 because the comparison in this video wasn't about trying to reduce the beam of light, it was comparing two equally-sized modifiers.
Thank you so soo soooo much! Glad you did them
Now I have a strong point to claim that
You're most welcome @Khairul Azhar Ramil. I'm actually in the process of doing a part two, as one of my subscribers wondered if there would be a difference using a bare bulb or round head.
I don't think the light is the same, I agree that the spread is the same when you diffuse but the distance from the source to the diffuser matters a lot and the deep oct has that characteristic. You said that the light on the deep is a bit softer, and I think that is the benefit of this kind of modifier. Also, if you have a big deep octa you can use it as indirect light, and that is a game-changer. I a sucker for soft light. Thanks for the video!
@Jose Soriano I used the distance from the light itself just to keep things consistent. Obviously in the real world you could put both modifiers equal distance from the front of the modifier so the deep para wouldn't have an advantage. I do think there's a slight difference with the deep para's characteristic that I like but I also think it's so minimal that I wouldn't tell someone to buy the deep para over the regular octa just for that difference. I like my deep para's but they really are a pain sometimes due to their weight and size. Trying to fit a 38" deep para in a tight space is a real struggle sometimes, and when trying to boom it, takes a ton of counter weight. :-)
@@AnthonyToglife I’m talking about the distance between the bulb and the diffuser, on the deep is bigger than the normal Octa. You can noticed this on bigger modifiers
@Jose Soriano maaaan I don't think it makes much of a difference. The softness of the light is determined by the size of the light source relative to your subject. If you use an equal-sized deep para vs an octa, I can't see where the light would be any softer. The light may be slightly more directional but softer, I don't think so. I unfortunately don't have identically-sized deep para's and octa's or else I'd pull the ole mannequin out and test this. At the end of the day though I think photography is subjective and if you see a difference, that's all that matters. My opinion is irrelevant. :-)
@@AnthonyToglife I disagree with you on that. The softness is not only determined by the size of the modifier. The closer the source of the farther the bulb to the diffuser the softer the light. The light needs to travel more before hitting the diffuser. That’s why indirect deep parabolic are very soft since the light travels more before hitting the diffuser
@Jose Soriano if you meter the light and the light hitting the subject is the same intensity, I stand by my notion that the light won't be any softer. Light metering at, for example, f8 is what it is, regardless of how far the actual light is from the subject. If the front of the light is 1ft from the subject for both modifiers and the sizes are identical, the deep para isn't inherently going to make the light softer just because the light is traveling further. In fact, that should technically make it harder. If you move a light source further from your subject, the relative size of the light gets smaller and hence the light gets harder. If you were talking no diffusion, I may agree but with the diffusion, I'm just not buying what you're selling. ;-D Do you have identical-sized modifiers you could do some tests and provide me some sample images?
If desired for portrait the deep will produce a much more natural shape of the light glint in the eyes but probably only necessary to consider for headshots
Indeed @thomashrr5081
Great video! I just subscribed
Much appreciated @Mitch Gaar! There will be a lot more content like this coming in 2022!
people need to remember... there is such a thing as grids that usually can be attached to octa boxes... if there really a need to narrow the light
I do appreciate this video. The video tests, explanation/breakdown is excellent! However, I feel it would be a more accurate test to test these lights on people (skin) instead of a wall to truly test the quality/differences of light between the two.
@Gadget Addy it actually wouldn't be more accurate to use people. Tests are best done when the variables can be controlled; a person won't sit still precisely without moving their head angle/position. As an FYI, I've done these same tests with people and in most cases it's almost impossible to tell the difference, which I mentioned in the video. I have fun doing these kind of tests but in the real world, the differences are usually negligible.
@@AnthonyToglife I'm so happy you responded! Seriously, thank you! Thank you for explaining that to me as well. Makes sense. I have another question that gets asked, but never answered a lot of times.
Do you think there'd be a difference between these two with video lights instead of flash?
What would be the differences, if any, with an without diffusion?
What would be the advantages vs disadvantages of each?
Karl Taylor video was also specifically about photography, not videography and he has not answered this question to any of the people who has asked this on his video...at least not that I've seen.
@@5k_addy let me start by saying this - light is light, so there wouldn't be any inherent different in how a particular light functions in the same modifier. In other words, a speedlight and constant light will generally produce the same quality of light within the same modifier. Obviously your output and color temp could vary depending on the power and kelvin of both, but in general, the light would be about the same.
Do I think there'd be any differences, I do, actually, but marginal. When I did my testing on people, the gradation from highlights to shadows was a bit smoother in some images with the deep para, BUT, I had to look for them. Would I have been able to tell the difference in looking at the two images side-by-side without knowing which was which, I honestly don't think I could of. The thing about some of these things is that you have to look so hard to spot differences that it just isn't a practical difference. It's akin to pixel-peeping; sure, you may be able to spot differences but who (with any sense) pixel-peeps every single image they shoot?!
Where this is a difference in video versus still is that in video the position of your head and body can change quite a bit because you're moving/talking and I do think there could be minor differences in using the more-directional deep para, but again I think it'd be so marginal it would be outweighed by the weight and cumbersome-ness of deep paras. I use my 48" deep para because it's a modifier I don't care about it getting damaged or whatever. It's basically a throw-away modifier and will give me an excuse to buy the regular octa version when the deep para dies, lol.
I frankly wouldn't recommend anyone buy a deep para over a regular octa, especially in the larger sizes. My 48" is stupid heavy and seeing that it doesn't really yield me a noticeable gain in light quality (even creatively) and it takes a little more juice from my flash to fill it, it just isn't worth it, even for video IMHO.
Oh, I just realized I missed a part of your question, without diffusion there would definitely be a noticeable difference between the two. The beam of light will definitely be more narrow with the deep para, so if you wanted to control the light hitting the background (you could use a grid but) the deep para without diffusion would be the clear winner. But, then you're dealing with a harder light source so there's trade-offs.
@@AnthonyToglife I meant to respond a lot sooner! But thank you so much for this information! You saved me so much time, money, and countless hassles. I can't thank you enough for breaking this down for me. VERY helpful! I'm sure you will continue to help others, but for me personally, you broke down this better than Adorama. Thanks again!
Reading the replies here and elsewhere on the channel, SUBBED! Great info for us portrait noobs. 👊🏾🧔🏾
Very informative!
Thank you @boftx1, very much appreciated.
I do feel like the deep parabolic has a better controlled light spread. The octabox feels like it has a hot spot. The difference is small though and maybe not worth the size disadvantage.
There absolutely are some minor differences @Andreas Hoffmann but like you mentioned, the size and weight still makes the deep para a bad option most times for me. In studio - no problems at all, on location - that deep para is way more headache than it's worth!
I got the deep para and it’s actually worked better for me being that it’s heavy. My small octa use to blow away lol
@Kingdom Pictures and Media most definitely, sometimes heavier is better! I boom my lights often and in those instances, heavier works against me most of the time. What size modifiers are you using, out of curiosity?
@@AnthonyToglife I use a glow EZ lock 38in deep parabolic and a have neewer (not sure what size) octobox and shoot thru umbrella
@@kingpixmedia I just used my 38" deep para the other day and although yes, it definitely works better in wind in terms of weight, it was a big problem with the AD400 - I was struggling to keep it angled like I wanted it. The wind with the weight of the modifier was sometimes too much for the little bracket on the AD400 to handle.
I think you missed the point here Anthony. Parabolic softboxes as described by Karl Taylor have a focusable light that is usually more accurate than what you show here-a parabolic reflector and a parabolic softbox. All you are comparing are two shoot thru reflectors that allow the user to put in diffusion layers to soften the light. A true parabolic modifyer attempts to limit the "hot spot" by the user focusing the light back into the umbrella like modifyer to help eliminate or make the "hot spot" larger. That umbrella-like modifyer is designed to throw that light further and more accurate.
@Bob Leverone Photography with all due respect, did you even watch my video? I said at the minute mark I never thought or expected deep parabolic modifiers to be or function as actual parabolics. My video was intended to focus on the light property of a deep para versus a regular octabox to see if there were any differences at all, AKA 100% marketing BS or only partially BS. I didn't miss any point Mr. Leverone. ;-)
Had a camera question. This guy is selling thisSony a77 DSLR body, no scratches on sensor, still has plastic on tilting LCD
- 18-70mm, f3.5-5.6 official Sony lens
- 50mm prime f1.8 official Sony lens
- 35-80mm macro Minolta lens
- 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 Tamron telephoto zoom lens
- two batteries and battery chargers
- 32GB SD card
- wireless shutter remote
- micro USB cable
- micro HDMI cable.
Sorry for the long comment. Does this seem worth it to you? $600 bucks
@V WorldWide honestly man I don't know much about Sony gear at all, but in looking this stuff up it seems to be a pretty good deal for all of that.
thanks, man appreciate it. I keep going back and forth on cameras. I love The Sony brand. but I hear great things about Cannon. I currently own a Nikon p900 pretty much a recreational camera with massive zoom.
@@VWorldWide nowadays cameras are cameras lol, just get something and keep moving forward. Don't get too hung up on gear, brand, etc.
Thanks Anthony. It would be good to see a test with a tube based light (like a Godox AD300, AD600) . The speed light is going to be too directional to get the full effect of a deep parabolic (DP). Overall DP looks better to me - and in real life with an AD300 it works great. A inward facing parabolic (like the Broncolor) with a focusing rod takes it to the next level.
Very interesting point @Paul’s Cinema Reel! What if I use the bare bulb on the AD200? I have an AD400 but lugging that thing to a parking garage and setting it up would be a chore for this, lol.
Side note, I do think the deflector plate would help minimize or eliminate the issue with directionality of the speedlight but I’m still up for trying it with something different.
@@AnthonyToglife lol absolutely true. I just have a few AD300s and AD200's myself - that's about as much weight as I want to carry:) But yes the AD200 with the bulb attachment would be a very good test too. I actually ordered the deep parabolic 34" from Adorama as well - that's how I came across you video. I've seen some tests with the AD300 and it looks pretty good. Will run some tests myself when it comes in. I just followed you on Instagram (Paul Singh). Best regards.
@@paulscinemareel5671 you have GREAT work sir! Very tasteful and artistic, I love to see this level of work in that genre. I will definitely do the test with the bare bulb this weekend some time.
@@AnthonyToglife love your work as well. Greatly appreciated ! Thank you ! I should get my DP next week and will give a try soon. Was also thinking that something like a Stofen diffuser on the speedlight would spread the light a bit too. In some cases where space is tight and I need minimal light I revert to a Godox V1 but have the round (half-dome) diffuser on it . Quite honestly - not bad at all when using it with a 12x36 strip box.
I like my 33” deep para without a diffuser on it for shooting outdoor youth portraits in midday sun.
@kennypringle4580 I like that you use your modifiers in different variations and actually put thought into it, instead of just doing what the internet says you should do, haha.
I have both but my octagon probably fits my need more than the parabolic... I only use parabolic for studio work
I would say the same for me.
Thanks for that useful video.
@smartintech you're most welcome! Thank you for watching.