that is exactly my point in starting this thread, but it is a great way to think of it, that a huge softbox far enough away with enough power can become hard -- the sun!

Thats a good point studio. One that to be honest took me a long time to get. Even if you use a "soft light" lets say a shoot through umbrella if it is very far away with a high powered flash it might still come acrossas a hard light.

visumax said:
Thanks for all the advice and I am glad to create so much interest in the subject of hard vs soft light.

No problem. It's a good topic!

visumax said:
Light always travels in a straight line, and it is never really hard or soft. These terms have to do with how many directions the light comes from to the subject.

Strictly speaking, true. Diffusion materials (polysilks, 216, 250, opal, etc.) merely scatter light rays. However, I should also mention the term "wrap." A large source is able to "wrap" your subject, meaning that the light is coming from a number of different directions. A large amount of wrap results in what we know as "soft" or "flat" lighting, where there is little contour created by shadow--i.e., all of the shadow areas are "filled."

visumax said:
I was speaking of outdoor lighting, shooting into the sun where I am using fill flash. I either have to have big softbox lighting close to my subject, or many flashes that can be at a greater distance.

Almost . . . but to avoid confusion, let me clarify the latter part of your statement: " . . . many flashes can be at a greater distance." The greater the distance, the more a given source starts to resemble a point-source (i.e., "hard" light).

It's all about the total square inches of source, relative to their subject distance. How ever many SB-900 flash heads (stacked and side-by-side) it would take to make up a total of 12" x 12" of illumination surface, would result in the same degree of "softness" of a 12" x 12" softbox, given the same subject distances. Of course, several dozen SB-900s would have a lot more output, but it would still be no less "soft" (assuming the flash heads have a similar amount of diffusion material to emulate the diffuser on the softbox). In other words, even though there would be a huge difference in the quantity of illumination, if the source sizes are the same, then both sources would have the same amount of "wrap" (hence, the same amount of "softness").

Thanks for all the advice and I am glad to create so much interest in the subject of hard vs soft light. Light always travels in a straight line, and it is never really hard or soft. These terms have to do with how many directions the light comes from to the subject. If there are enough point sources, and they are close enough, then there is even illumination and the light appears "soft" whereas the more area that is not illuminated, the more shadows, and thus "hard". I was speaking of outdoor lighting, shooting into the sun where I am using fill flash. I either have to have big softbox lighting close to my subject, or many flashes that can be at a greater distance. Putting diffusers on the small strobes really does not soften the light, which is my point.

anjz said:
Here's my take on this. Let me know if I am off base.

If you are outside, using a flash as key light, and using a diffuser to shoot people-sized things, you had better have one massive diffuser on your flash, or get something to bounce that flash off of. For instance, at 7 feet camera-to-person distance (or so), I doubt it would make much of a difference if the diffuser was, say, double the size of the bare flash--or even triple. You'll still end up with nasty shadows. That is, unless you have something to bounce that flash off of and the diffuser directs a lot of the flash's light to that bounce surface.

I could see how a diffuser might help when shooting little things, but portraits and the like, I don't see how a diffuser, without a couple of nearly bounce surfaces (that don't add color cast) to which the diffuser directs light.

What am I missing?

Not a thing! You're exactly right!

Yes, you would need a large reflector, and a very powerful source (if choosing not to use reflected sunlight). Or high Watt-second studio strobes with large softboxes.

For me, it's more practical to simply reflect the sun's light. Matthews makes an excellent hard reflector called a Mathboard reflector. It's 40" x 40" and has two, silvered sides: super-soft and soft. These are super-soft, lightweight reflectors that produce a quality of light that resembles a 4K HMI through a 4' x 4' polysilk, when used on a sunny day. They're great, but the size of the lit area is fairy small--only good for a head and shoulder shot. For a full-body shot, a couple 4' x 8' sheets of white Foamcore works great in direct sun, close to your subject. Place a couple of these in front of your subject, with the sun at her back, and voila! But, any further than a few feet, and they won't put out enough light. You can also buy or rent ridiculously large Gryffolyn white fabric reflectors, up to 20' x 20' and even larger.

But, a couple of high-powered studio strobes and some large softboxes is hard to beat. It would take several hundred Gary Fongs or about a thousand Stofens to match that!

[Note: I originally thought you were talking about fill-flash. While the misdirected reply below doesn't apply to your post (because I misread it), I'll add it here anyway . . .

If you're talking about daylight exteriors, I think you may be confusing, "lowering contrast ratio," with soft-source lighting. Daylight exterior fill-flash is used mainly to lower the contrast ratio between the direct sunlight on your subject, and the shadows visible on your subject's face (typically). Typically, fill-flash fired from a Speedlight or other small-source unit is actually fairly point-source-ey and "hard." It's simply not as noticeable in a daylight exterior shot, since you're merely filling shadows (i.e., lowering the lighting ratio), and the sun is acting as your primary key light (which is also a point-source).

Although on a clear day, while the sun typically behaves as a point source, there's often quite a bit of reflected light from the ground and surrounding elements, which also helps lower the scene's contrast ratio.]

Oops! Double-post.

visumax said:
I have been reading a lot about soft vs hard light using strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, etc. My view is that there is really no such thing as "hard" or "soft" light but that this is relative only to how broad an area the light is coming from.

The latter part of your statement is absolutely correct. The former, I beg to differ (at least, semantically), but, I think I know what you're getting at. I would still characterize the two types of sources this way:

1. Point source = "hard."
2. Large source = "soft."

The general "rule" which affects a light's degree of "softness:"

The larger the source, the "softer" the light--and its derivative: the closer the source is to its subject, the "softer" the light (because the source becomes larger, relative to its subject, as it's moved closer).

For example, an 8' x 8' polysilk, illuminated by a bank of KinoFlo Image 80s, at a distance of one-foot from your subject, would be pretty darned soft. Move that same rig further and further away from your subject, and it will slowly start to resemble a point source (albeit, a very dim one).

Speedlight diffusers like Stofens, when pointed directly at your subject, make the light slighly softer (but only barely so), because the flash is merely scattering the light a bit more evenly over the entire surface flash head than the reflector does alone--this merely eliminates any irregularities in reflector design. Stofens also bleed light from the side, adding a small amount of bounce from whatever reflective surfaces there are nearby. The "softening" effect from a Stofen, however, is minimal (unless the bounce contributes a significant amount of the light) largely because the overall size of the flashhead's source is unchanged when pointed directly at the subject (save for any bounce).

Gary Fong-type Speedlight diffusers are a bit softer because they're larger (bounce aside). LumiQuest-style "Big Bounce" Velcro-on bounce reflectors enlarge the source of the flashhead many more times than a Stofen or Fong-type diffuser, and as a result are softer still (excluding any off-axis bounce).

visumax said:
I think that if you had enough point light sources/strobes that the effect would be the same as fewer lights that were expanded by umbrellas/boxes.

Yes, that is true to a certain extent. It depends on both the spacing of the individual light sources, and the distance of the instrument(s) to its subject. However, whichever group of sources combine to make the largest aggregate "source area," will still effect the "softer" light.

A 1' x 1' LED LitePanel (above) is a good example of how an array of "point sources" can still make soft light. While the panel is made up of hundreds of individual "point sources," at typical lighting distances, the character of the light is quite soft.

In response to your original post, comparing four Speedlights with your two Elinchrom umbrellas depends entirely on the total area of "bounce source" you plan on employing with your Speedlights (if you're even planning on bouncing them at all). If your "total bounce area" from your Speedlights (wall/ceiling, Foamcore, umbrellas, etc.) is less than the total area of your Elinchrom set-up, the light will be less soft.

If you plan to equal the softness of the two Elinchrom-powered umbrellas with Speedlights alone, that are not bounced, and that are pointed directly at your subject, you would still need need as much aggregate source area as your Elinchrom umbrellas provided to simulate the effect of the 1' x 1' LitePanel above. That would be a LOT of Speedlights! No matter how thick a layer of diffusion you put onto your Speedlight heads, the light will not get much softer until you also increase the size of the source (e.g. attaching a large softbox).

I think that the hardness or softness of the light is subject to your personal style or the particular look you are going for with the shot. There really should be no debate. This is art - so there is no right or wrong. Where I think you are less right is in that you think it would be easier to achieve softbox effects with several naked speedlights. Given enough time with trial and error, sure you could. Compared to the 1/2 second it took me to setup the shot below I don't think easier is a word I would describe not using a softbox.

This was shot on a clear day with the sun low in the sky. We are in the shade of the wall behind the model. I am about 4 feet away with a focal length of about 50mm (35ish on DX). I am holding an SB-600 with a home made 15" x 10" softbox in my left hand.

Closing the month. Stay tuned for the October Photo-A-Day.

Looking southeast toward downtown L.A. from the rooftop of a West Hollywood hotel earlier this evening at dusk. An unexpected photo opportunity with no tripod, I had to handhold my lens against a fire escape railing for a half-second exposure.

AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8

Oulanka Great Canyon

Nice shot Regulator.

Thanks for the kind words everyone!

'Halifax Hospitality'

A self portrait thanks to insomnia and an outdoor light shining through a balcony railing and door.

Intersections

Finally dusted off my D90 today and shot a few frames on a film location . . .

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX

One of my first shots from the P7000. What a nice point and shoot, getting better results than I expected! Closeup at 28mm F2.8.

ISO 3200 F11 @ 1/8 second hand-held 70-300mm VR

Elvis, that shot is incredible.

hmm interesting! i love my 50 1.4 af-s but never has had the D version.

@smarterchild: Yes, I did buy the new AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. But after while, I decided to shoot a chart and compare it with my AF 50mm f/1.4D--I found that my copy of the 50mm G, was noticeably softer than my 50mm D lens, so I returned it.

@treckie: Excellent shots, Trek! Yes, those are reflections from the crew vehicle we use at work (my soundman was driving). Thanks, but I wish I had stopped down more and panned left a little, damnit!

@elvishefer: AMAZING!!!