Differences between these soft lights

D

DDirector

Veteran
I have used all these setups in the past, but they were for practical reasons. Either because I needed a larger soft source or because the light had to be very small and up close, etc.

Well, not concerning about the fact of the different strengths of light - i.e. having a large fresnel shooting through a diffusion frame being much more powerful than a Kino Flo or size, spill, or anything like that (Not the main focus, but can be listed as a pro/con) -- but instead focusing on the actual quality of light as soft source.

Talking about using:
-Kino Flo's
-Bouncing light off a white card/reflector
-Through diffusion 4x4'/8x8'/12x12' frame
-Through multiple (2+) diffusion 4x4'/8x8'/12x12' frames
-Diffusion gel on light

Which looks the nicest, why?
I see all of these being used all the time. Sometimes I see them using one method when I would prefer another method.
 
It depends.

What size kino? What size fresnel? What shooting distance? What effect do you want? How much fall-off etc.

There are times when any of these scenarios will be the best choice. You need to test them all & find out their strengths and weaknesses.
 
I wouldn't say there's a large difference between bouncing a light off a 24" white card and a 24" softbox in terms of light quality, but definitely with bouncing light to create a soft light source you are going to have to control spill a lot more. Also some people prefer to diffuse the light before it hits their card or reflector, to make it more soft and less harsh.

As for shooting through diffusion panels the combination of the distance between the light source, diffusion panel, and subject all make a difference in the final look.. sometimes you want more of a wrap around effect, or more/less fall-off... just practice it all so you know the effects of the various combinations.
 
To para phrase the good and talented mr. Deakins, there are no rules about what is nicest. Amongst those you listed, the "nicest" light is totally depended on the premise of the shoot; the story, the feel, the location, and maybe even more so YOU.

So the question can't really be answered in degrees of niceness, but more so in terms of what is soft and what is harder than soft or more spilling.

I think what has been the most fun and taught most is experimenting myself rather than reading what this or that guy says about this and that light. You could light something with a work light and if the shot works, it works.
 
I made a post a while back with a pretty extensive Diffusion Test...Here's a couple links to it.

http://rtcinematography.tumblr.com/post/16167190448/diffusion-test-pt-1#disqus_thread

http://rtcinematography.tumblr.com/post/16168006555/diffusion-test-pt-2#disqus_thread

Basically, there are a couple of factors that affect the quality of light, thickness of the diffusion, and the size of the source relative to the subject. Some diffusion materials such as muslin, or tough spun, will create a soft light that still has a hard edge to it, while others like full grid and 1000H will give you a shadowless light when close to the subject.

I'd still like to test bigger rags and also do a test with bounce sources as well, but as you can imagine it's pretty time intensive.
 
All I would say is that clipping diffusion onto a light is usually the worst way to diffuse it. Sometimes it's the most practical thing to do, but as far as strictly softening the light goes, it's the least effective way because you really aren't increasing the size of the source by much. More than anything it will just cut the amount of light and cause the barn doors to not do their job of controlling the light.

Other than that, it's difficult to say what looks nicest. A good gaffer can get an extremely similar look with many different tools, at which point the tool of choice comes down to practicality. As an example, a couple ellipsoidals bouncing off a white bead board that's the same shape as a kino flo can give off an identical quality of light. But a kino flo is more easily controllable, an actor might have to walk through the beam of an ellipsoidal before it hits the bounce in which case you have a problem, it's a tungsten light so it will draw more amps, etc. But a Kino might be more difficult to rig and run power to in a camera safe / cosmetic way than taping up some bounce, maybe you don't have enough of the right color gel for a whole Kino but you have enough for the gel frame of an ellipsoidal, who knows.
 
Well... you're still diffracting the light quite a bit, in addition to cutting it down (and many other variables, like making it harder for barn doors to do their job like you mentioned).

Ultimately it depends on what you're looking for.

And to the OP, the best advice anyone can give, I would think (and easily the best advice I ever receive about these kinds of things) is...

Shoot a test. Decide for yourself.
 
I like the Kinos because the seem to fall off very quickly and they are easy to push in. It depends on what you like for the shot. I usually bounce for fill and ambient light since it's difficult to control, or if it's bouncing up. Just to answer the question, I think that a big silk or grid 8 X 8, with light behind it is really the "nicest" light but you need a lot of room and I am usually on a location so the kinos are the best for me. Also, the light I have for the silk is mostly tungsten or I really have to back up with the HMI for daylight. Honestly, even in tungsten the kino comes out because if I'm backing a practical, the big silk looks gratuitous and doesn't fall off or control as easily, if indeed I can have the room. I think it's a lot about being able to change color temps and how well the kinos work on location. They are just good and practical.

I think of some setups and I'll look at it in edit and I'm always like... damn, those kinos look good. It may be very 2006 of me, but I like em
 
Last edited:
It varies for every application but if I had to pick one soft source for a shot it would be a 4x4 Kino.
 
There are so many different qualifications for this sort of thing. I'm pretty fond of a wide soft source, like several 4x4 or Image 85's side by side, which delivers an extremely soft wraparound light that is actually well modeled vertically, i.e. falls off under the chin. If I want a super-soft source that is all but shadowless, I hang a large muslin on a t-bone and bunch it up like a curtain, then aim a hard source (par, BJ etc) into it 90 degrees off axis, i.e. from the side, so that the source is broken up into a series of hot areas. This results in an extremely natural looking light, and it requires very little depth in a limited space (have done it in bathrooms etc).
 
Charles, in one of the opening scenes to "No Country for Old Men" where the officer sits at his desk at the police station and in the background we see the antagonist sneak up on him... the key light (off screen left) was a very large floor to ceiling and wide muslin with a hard source aimed at it. The result is like you say a very nice natural looking light, with good wrap-around and it seems to have a faster fall-off since it is shoot-through and not bounced-off.
 
The first thing to realize about diffusion is size matters. If you're clipping a 1/2 stop diffusion or a 2 stop diffusion directly to a 1k open face tungsten, you'll notice minimal difference. Shoot that light through a 4x4 silk or bounce it off a foam board and things start to look a lot different. So when you want to soften a light, make the source larger. You can do this one of three ways: shoot through diffusion, bounce off a surface or move the light closer to the subject.
 
I would actually expect a source pushed through muslin to drive further than a bounce source into muslin, since it has slightly more defined directionality.

Thinking about Roger and his soft sources as I was writing the above. One of the shows I worked on for him was "In the Valley of Elah". A long Steadicam shot I did ended in a hallway with a conversation between a group. Roger had four or so Image 80's lined up next to each other, which of course delivered a big flat source. He then asked his gaffer to turn off a tube here and there. I watched closely as the light started to shape. It was so subtle...by the time he was satisfied, I looked back at the units and what remained was so random (not to him, but to the observer) that I couldn't really take anything from it that I could use elsewhere!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top