When somebody begins a video with the phrase “what a load of marketing bulls**t”, they’re about to either make themselves look like an idiot or they’re going to back their claim up and show you some solid evidence. In this video from Karl Taylor, I’m leaning towards the latter. Karl takes a look at parabolic softboxes and demonstrates why they really don’t offer all that much benefit over regular octagonal softboxes (or octaboxes).
It is a pretty bold claim, but it’s one that Karl’s happy to prove in the studio with some practical examples using a standard 5ft octabox vs a 5ft parabolic softbox. Karl explains the purpose of softboxes, how they work and why the whole concept of a parabolic one makes absolutely no sense when you take a look at the light coming out of that front diffusion panel.
And, well, the photos he shoots with both modifiers certainly seem to back this up, with images from both the regular octabox and the parabolic softbox appearing pretty much identical. There was some difference in how the light presents on the subject once the diffusion was removed if you just want to try using it as a parabolic reflector, but those looks can also be achieved quite easily with other, less expensive and less cumbersome methods – as Karl also demonstrates. I’ve never done side-by-side comparisons the way Karl does in the video, but I’ve always felt this way myself. I do have a 4ft parabolic softbox in my collection, although I’ve never really felt it gave me much more than I could get with regular 4ft octaboxes I’ve owned in the past, under most circumstances. I have noticed that maybe it give me a bit more reach (as in, throws the light a little further) when using it out on location at a distance from my subject, but in the studio, at closer distances, where it provides the most softness, there’s no noticeable difference whatsoever for me. Do you see a difference with parabolic softboxes over a regular octabox? Other than the added bulk, obviously. [via ISO1200]
