# Thoughts on Peter Hurley kit? $5,500??



## DGMPhotography (Jun 16, 2018)

Peter Hurley is a pretty well known headshot photographer based in New York. I was interested in his lighting kit and saw that it's selling for $5,500!

Westcott   Peter Hurley Flex LED 4-Light Kit

Does anyone have experience with this kit, or can perhaps suggest alternatives? Doesn't look too hard to make your own either. And thoughts on the lighting style itself?


----------



## sergezap (Jun 16, 2018)

It's just a marketing and nothing more. Peter Hurley has used a Kino Flo setup, but it's a bit hard to sell a highly priced cinema stuff to the masses, so he is "using" this Westcott kit now. A bit less highly overpriced.
Do you want a continuous light setup like this?
2 strip boxes, 2 softboxes, 4 e27 cri 90 led bulbs from any manufacturer you like.


----------



## Overread (Jun 16, 2018)

Far as I can tell LED doesn't really offer much if any real gain for photographers. The quality LED setups that are worth owning are expensive and regular speedlites and studio lights offer all the photographer needs at lower prices (esp studio flash setups). 

LED really comes into its own for video work, where the continuous light which doesn't generate heat has a lot of benefits over traditional lighting that can build up heat over time. Though, again, my impression is that quality LED setups are still not cheap; however I would advise looking into them closer and see what is really out there. I've not really done a huge amount of research to  be able to tell if this kit is worth it or not. 

It should be noted that portrait photography doesn't really need a named kit to be effective; the core resources have been pretty well established for years. A named kit will be tailored around the photographers specific style, so if that style works for you and you emulate the process it can be a simple one-purchase option. Though named kits are, as pointed out earlier, often a marketing ploy


----------



## mrca (Jun 16, 2018)

I think Hurley's set up is nothing but marketing  of  crap.  The guy was a model who started a photo business with no photo training.  His schtick is head shots with florescents arranged in a rectangle a couple feet from the subject and shooting through the 2 foot open center while the subject squints.     It produces a 4 line rectangular catchlight around the pupil.  I'm sorry, but the catch light in a headshot is in the most important part of the shot, the eyes, and it is hard edged, distracting  and just plain weird.   Unless you want to spend lots of time in post taking it out.  Good luck.   In addition to being ridiculously expensive, the florescent lights are low power and pretty much one trick ponies.   You can do the same with strobes and 4 strip boxes if you like the freaky catchlights for a fraction of the cost and the strobes will do so much more than just headshots.   Personally I think the shots are nicely lit, no cigar, but the catch lights are ridiculous.  You often hear folks say they like a rectangular catch light because it looks like a window and even go to the extent to put tape on it to make it look like window panes in the catch light.  I wonder how they feel about 4 lines around the iris?   Personally, I like a circular catchlight, the sun is circular and it is a soft shape, no harsh corners in a soft shot or in a round eye but with no anachroid legs in it from an umbrella.  I want the entire image to contibute to the feel of the shot including the catchlights.  Just me.   Also, with strobe modeling lights, I can control the size of the pupil, again an important element in the headshot.  I wonder if the reason for the squint schtick is because his models are staring into bright continuous lights.   Like staring into light from a bright reflector outdoors.   I  don't have that problem with strobe.  Sorry, I don't want a beautiful lady squinting in her photo.  Again, that's me.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 16, 2018)

that is way to much shizzle for not enough nizzle.  your paying for that guys name on the box.
overpriced and unnecessary. you could literally get that exact same effect using speedlights, but knocking a zero off the end of that price tag.
granted, its more useful for video...but still overpriced.
did you even look at the model in the ad? the catchlights? horrendous. 

but if you got moneys to burn, i say buy it and review it for us.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 16, 2018)

I'd buy that hasselblad before those dim lights.







1/60 at only f/6.3  --  tripod is a must here, and so is a very stable model themselves.

Hurley's magic is all in his posing, his lighting has nothing to do with his popularity.


also, LEDs are incredibly cheap and I bet the complete cost of that kit, minus the case, is $60.  The size factor/portability is awesome, however.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 16, 2018)

I think the thing you want to take away from Peter Hurley is found in his longer videos (like the 1-hour one B&H had him do) and in his experiences in photographing, and posing. There's a great temptation to think that the lights of an expert headshot shooter will bring to you some of the magic that the top pro extracts from them, but keep in mind that photographing people is more about the "soft skills" than about the hardware.

His philosophy on continuous lighting versus electronic flash lighting is a critical part of the way he poses, and directs, and gives feedback to his sitters. Continuous lighting is...always on...strobes are...very specifically ready, then you have to wait for recycle...strobes POP! and are perhaps cumulatively tiring for many people...continuous lights are just...on...

I do not think that speedlights give very good headshot/portrait lighting, because I want to see the COLOR or the eye,and I do not want that Holstein cow look, with big, dark, widely-dialated pupils, and no eye color...I think the best portrait,beauty,and fashion work shows the iris of the eye small, with a large, well-colored eye...I think 250-Watt modeling lamps in pro-level flash heads give the best results, because the subject's pupils are constricted, and thus have more eye color...a widely-dialated, big, black eyeball looks like ****, and that's what much speedlight work looks like to me, on headshots or portraits.

SO.....BRIGHT lights cause the subjects pupils to constrict, and they can also give interesting catchlights on the eyeball's surface curvatures.

Hurly's got some very valuable tips in his videos. tips on directing,and posing, and to a lesser extent, on lighting. I dunno...I worked in some busy studios in the late 1980's...the skill in much,much,much more in how you relate to people and how you command the session and how you direct,coax,cajole,elicit expressions and synthetic emotions from people when they are in front of the camera.

There's also the tripod-mounted camera versus hand-held dichotomy and how that affect s the session.

Anyway...watch his videos, read his book...but don't drop $5,500 on those lights thinking that _those things_ have anything to do with the results you'd be able to achieve, because it's not about the hardware nearly as much as it is the interpersonal skills and your own knowledge of how to light people. YES, there is indeed some influence attributable to the type of lighting and the type of modifiers being used in a session, but the real success comes from refining the soft skills, the posing, the banter, the positive reinforcement, the timing, the non-gear-related aspects.


----------



## mrca (Jun 16, 2018)

Derrel, absolutely right.  The lighting is merely one piece of the equation that goes into making  portrait.  It must fit with the mood and theme of the shot.   I think Bambi Cantrell said it well, expression trumps perfection but then Jerry Ghionis expanded it and said expression AND perfection trumps expression.   The Einstein modeling lights are not only the 250 watts Derrel recommends, they are infinitely adjustable from the camera position allowing the size of the pupils to beprecisely  dialed in with  the modeling lights.   But in a fast moving studio session,   Derrel nailed it, a critical skill is being able to relate to the subject and extract genuine, expressions that reveal the real person.  Now, Hurley specializes in actor head shots so expression is toned down in that genre.   But the squint?  Sure sometimes, but recently saw it on a womans photo.  Made her appear unapproachable and snarly.   If you watch Hurley's videos you will see how he relates to his subject.   It is his style, not for everyone.   I also agree about  not liking  large pupils that do  not leave you much iris to work with.   I think Derrel summed up what separates a professional portrait from one that isn't, not just lighting appropriate for the shot, but and expression and the timing to nail it.  Einsteins also pop 10 times a second so there is no recycle time even on the large vagabond battery  up to about 5 shots.   The flash popping is a disadvantage  when trying to get a shot not detected.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 16, 2018)

I had seen the videos before, advertising the Hurley-sponsored Flex Kit from F.J. Westcott, which is sold here, and one can see that one, single, 2-foot by 2-foot light in this system is $1,999...https://www.fjwestcott.com/lighting/flex

A Made in China 24 x 24 inch softbox with a recessed front face,and a removable fabric grid, is around $79 or so,on average. Now...that's a lot of cash difference.

You could purchase a ton of traditional studio flash gear and modifiers, and indeed outfit a studio, for less than the price of the $5,500 "kit".

What I see from the Flex LED system is a very modern, new-fangled technology. The Flex system looks well-designed, high-tech, stylish, sexy, and so on. And it is very expensive! The questions I have about it are about modifiers,like eggcrate fabric grids, louvers, etc, and the lack of traditional options such as removable inner fabrics in white,silver,and maybe gold....these are FLAT, sheet-like lights...because of this, the traditional concepts like adding a grid to the front of a softlight: how does that work?

When I watch the Hurley video with the model Chloe, the thing I notice the most is the soft,low-contrast light, and a sort of ugly,sterile lighting that reminds me of office fluorescent lighting. Look at the faces...his an hers...bathed in a glow from close-in, soft, almost shadow-free lighting. That kind of lighting looks vaguely odd and disconcerting to me.

I totally agree with Hurley's idea about the eye pupils and the eye color being better with bright lights being shined on the subject's face...it gives good,rich eye color. But that can be done with a wide number of other lighting systems. The Flex mat LED system is a very expensive system; I am not sure if there are any others like it on the market today. I think it is hugely over-priced compared to traditional modifiers. The $79 24x24 inch softbox can be filled with a studio strobe  that runs anywhere from $49 for an economy strobe, to $2,000 for a ProFoto monolight with battery powered remote TTL capability, or anything in-between. And there are lower-cost MIC LED mat options.

There are now some MIC low-cost options:


----------



## mrca (Jun 16, 2018)

Derrel, you are right about the almost shadow free light.   I wonder how that compares to an AB 30" moon unit that attaches to their ring light.  It too has an unusual catch light.   The ring light produces a circle in the iris that glamour folks like, similar to the rectangle Hurley's lights produces but for less than $500 light and moon unit.   I wonder if pulling subject 8-10 feet from right at the bg would minimize the shadow around the subject, the other signature of a ring light and perhaps eliminated with the moon unit.   And the ring light isn't a one trick pony,  it can be used for absolutely on camera axis fill,  or off axis fill.  With a grid, as a kicker.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jun 17, 2018)

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I agree, way overpriced. And I have checked out some of his videos - his thoughts on interacting with the client are pretty good!

I do like the idea of the continuous lights to dilate the pupil so you get more eye color. I think I might try to create that effect by using one of my video lights, and then use my flashes for the actual lighting. But I so very much want that half circle/crescent catch light. It looks so pretty to me! I'd love to have something like this: The Giant 48" Ring Light at WPPI - Chimera. You can cover up parts of the modifier to get different catch light shapes. And the size of it makes the lighting very soft and noticeable catch lights, which you can't get with normal sized ring lights.

But again, stupidly expensive. 

I suspect that to get the light I want, I will have to build my own custom design.


----------



## Designer (Jun 17, 2018)

"Continuous" lighting that is perceived as "bright" will constrict the pupils, not dilate them.

You can get the same effect with regular studio strobes that have a modeling light in them.  Some are even adjustable.  

Unusual catch-lights, whether ring-shaped or rectangular, are just a gimmick, and as such do not add substantially to a portrait other than to help identify a photographer's "style".  Copy his style or develop your own, but you should know why you are doing so, and not simply jump on the currently-popular bandwagon.

Over-priced lighting gear is no better, and perhaps even inferior to that which is more affordable.  Spend like a drunken sailor, then re-spend when the next fad rolls around.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jun 18, 2018)

Designer said:


> "Continuous" lighting that is perceived as "bright" will constrict the pupils, not dilate them.
> 
> You can get the same effect with regular studio strobes that have a modeling light in them.  Some are even adjustable.
> 
> ...



Sorry, meant constrict, not dilate. Thanks for correcting me.

I don't think the shape of a catch light is a gimmick. It's a creative choice. And I'd really like to make mine a crescent shape, which is not what Hurley does. I just really like the look of it. 

I've made my own strip lights before, so I'm comfortable making my own modifiers.. just gotta figure out how. I plan to do things the cheapest way possible, while still getting good results.


----------



## sergezap (Jun 18, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> I don't think the shape of a catch light is a gimmick. It's a creative choice. And I'd really like to make mine a crescent shape, which is not what Hurley does. I just really like the look of it.
> 
> I've made my own strip lights before, so I'm comfortable making my own modifiers.. just gotta figure out how. I plan to do things the cheapest way possible, while still getting good results.


The easiest/cheapest way to go is a diy mask/gobo on your existing modifier, imho.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 18, 2018)

I own enough lighting gear to [literally] illuminate an arena.  The total cost (used)?  Less than half of that.  Said same kit has also done headshots for most of the real estate agents in my area, as well as a lot of other work.  I can see a lot of uses for that type of lighting, but not at anything like that price point.


----------



## ronlane (Jun 18, 2018)

Good conversation here about the Hurley set up. Thing to me is that his lighting set-up is what works for him. I like the idea of constant lighting for the eyes as mentioned and that you can see the light and how it is going to look on camera (one of Hurley's reasons for constant lighting).

For me, I have to remember that Hurley was using a Hassleblad and Keno's until Canon got him to use a 5Ds or a 5Dsr and then Wescott approached him about "making" this set-up. It works for him but you could make s set-up for far less that would work as well.

I've been lucky enough to get to sit in on one of his headshot key notes that was over an hour long. As @Derrel said, it was so much more about the soft skills, the people skills than it was about gear and lighting. He knows what he is doing and gets compensated well for this knowledge and ability to produce images for the people.


----------



## mrca (Jun 18, 2018)

DGM, I agree, the catchlight is often the highest contrast element in a head shot  is extremely important.   It gives life to the eyes which look dead without one.  Personally, I am not a fan of the crescent catchlight, but I believe they can be easily created with another over priced piece of gear, a 3 piece angling reflector that is positioned under subject to create a low catchlight.   For me, and I am only speaking for me, when the catch light becomes suprisingly different than normal, it can become a distraction and detract somewhat from the total impact of the image.  I believe some of the great master painters used such a catchlight.  but then, they often weren't going for the detail we get with 46 mp.    As for seeing the lighting,  he is shooting tethered in studio and gets to see it on the monitor with more critical eye than looking across the 6-8 feet at the subject.   Besides, I would hope a "professional" has shot enough to be able to envision what he is seeing with the modeling lights and measuring with his meter as it will appear in the finished image.    Hell, with a 250 watt modeling light, I could photo by the modeling lights only through soft boxes  by taking the trigger off the camera and push iso if needed.   Then the same lights that cost a fraction of the latest fad after the kino fad, will pump 650 ws through a 7' octa for full length or on battery pack useable outside in bright light.  Those puny things are one trick ponies.   In tight in studio because they are so underpowered.  I think some folks have pointed out some adorama lights that cost a tenth as much and have more power and will work with full sized modifiers.   Physics doesn't change, the larger the relative size of the light the softer and these things are tiny to start and I guess they could be pushed through a diffuser panel to enlarge them, but they ae already low on power.   The cost to me just isn't warranted and what they produce isn't anything I want to do.   I appreciate Hurley's marketing more than his images.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jun 19, 2018)

mrca said:


> DGM, I agree, the catchlight is often the highest contrast element in a head shot  is extremely important.   It gives life to the eyes which look dead without one.  Personally, I am not a fan of the crescent catchlight, but I believe they can be easily created with another over priced piece of gear, a 3 piece angling reflector that is positioned under subject to create a low catchlight.   For me, and I am only speaking for me, when the catch light becomes suprisingly different than normal, it can become a distraction and detract somewhat from the total impact of the image.  I believe some of the great master painters used such a catchlight.  but then, they often weren't going for the detail we get with 46 mp.    As for seeing the lighting,  he is shooting tethered in studio and gets to see it on the monitor with more critical eye than looking across the 6-8 feet at the subject.   Besides, I would hope a "professional" has shot enough to be able to envision what he is seeing with the modeling lights and measuring with his meter as it will appear in the finished image.    Hell, with a 250 watt modeling light, I could photo by the modeling lights only through soft boxes  by taking the trigger off the camera and push iso if needed.   Then the same lights that cost a fraction of the latest fad after the kino fad, will pump 650 ws through a 7' octa for full length or on battery pack useable outside in bright light.  Those puny things are one trick ponies.   In tight in studio because they are so underpowered.  I think some folks have pointed out some adorama lights that cost a tenth as much and have more power and will work with full sized modifiers.   Physics doesn't change, the larger the relative size of the light the softer and these things are tiny to start and I guess they could be pushed through a diffuser panel to enlarge them, but they ae already low on power.   The cost to me just isn't warranted and what they produce isn't anything I want to do.   I appreciate Hurley's marketing more than his images.




Hmmmm, a crescent shaped reflector - that is a great idea!


----------



## mrca (Jun 19, 2018)

Or just create them in post.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jun 19, 2018)

I've found creating catch lights in post isn't optimal. They aren't reflective of the actual light source used.


----------



## adamhiram (Jun 19, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> Hmmmm, a crescent shaped reflector - that is a great idea!


Sounds like you want a Westcott Eyelighter...  I've used one and the results are pretty nice, but the price is pretty steep for what is essentially just a big curved reflector.  DIYPhotography.com has a few tutorials for DIY versions that probably do the job just as well.


----------



## mrca (Jun 19, 2018)

DGM, the low curved catchlight isn't that hard to do add in post.  If you have your low fill with little or no catch light, it can be added in post if it that is an effect someone likes.   Adam, $300 for a one trick pony for a funky  catchlight just doesn't compute for me.  I thought I had seen one that was 3 sections as well.   I just don't like a low catch light.  I just want one.  In another post I showed how I hang  my low fill so I can maneuver it's catchlight  out of the eye.   And if it is there, I just remove it in post.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jun 19, 2018)

Yeah, like I said, I don't like the look of adding one in post, and I'd rather just get it done in-camera.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> Yeah, like I said, I don't like the look of adding one in post, and I'd rather just get it done in-camera.



And of course "adding a catchlight in post" does not, in any manner, modify the light at the time of shooting. Pushing a few pixels around is not the same as reflector fill, or a specific type of key light. The in-camera work that creates a specific catchlight is also part of the lighting set-up...not everything can be done in post work.

As far as it goes, one of the things Hurley's clients are after is a headshot that "stands out" from the 10,15,20, or 50 other headshots that might be under consideration...he's definitely trying to make his photos "stand out"...to be different.

There are a lot of ways to light faces. He's not known for shooting portraits, but for actor headshots.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jun 19, 2018)

Derrel said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, like I said, I don't like the look of adding one in post, and I'd rather just get it done in-camera.
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## mrca (Jun 20, 2018)

Exactly, adding a catch light in post doesn't change the lighting, but if using a low fill light with a small modifier producing a small low catch light, it creates the fill for the shadows, maybe somewhat different than some silly $300 curved reflector, but that small catchlight can be expanded in post for the  curved catch light.    If you want side fill, bring in reflectors or foam core on either side.  I doubt someone picking an actor is swayed by a rectangular Hurley catchlight or a curved lower one.    If I were the person hiring, I would ask why this guy has such weird looking eyes and was the light too bright because he is squinting or does he just have a vision problem?  Just another couple of ways for photographers to be fleeced of more money for gear.   And we all know how photographers love aquiring gear.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 20, 2018)

I don't like his kit. Peter Hurley is a bit like the HardRock Cafe of the headshot world.
Famous but passable and not amazing. His real strength is connecting with the subject, not lighting.
I don't like LED for portraits. I've used them before.
constant light means your subjects wince (especially those with pale blue eyes) because the light is too bright.


----------



## mrca (Jun 20, 2018)

Chuasam, I wonder if that is why he developed the "squint" schtick like it is cool when it is a disadvantage of his lights.   As for great connection with subjects, good but no cigar.  Impressive to someone who doesn't shoot portraits regularly or for a living, but just another day at work for those who do.   Bottom line, I see him as an ok photographer who has marketed his schtick and it took off.  My question is specialist or one trick pony?


----------



## sergezap (Jun 21, 2018)

He is the guy with impressive communicative skills, imho.

If you have shot something interesting with your Nokia 3310 it is an interesting shot.
If you have shot teaspoon with your Leica Noctilux it is one of thousands teaspoons with Leica Noctilux in EXIF on Flickr.


----------



## mrca (Jun 22, 2018)

Just a thought on the curved reflector for a semi circular catchlight in the lower eye.  The painting masters used to lighten the lower part of the iris on the theory that the brow shadowed the upper iris making it darker and the lower iris was illuminated by the light that was usually higher than the subject.   I wonder if that is what the curved reflector is trying to emulate and provide fill at the same time.  I have never heard it advocated for that, but just a thought.


----------



## sergezap (Jun 22, 2018)

mrca said:


> Just a thought on the curved reflector for a semi circular catchlight in the lower eye.  The painting masters used to lighten the lower part of the iris on the theory that the brow shadowed the upper iris making it darker and the lower iris was illuminated by the light that was usually higher than the subject.   I wonder if that is what the curved reflector is trying to emulate and provide fill at the same time.  I have never heard it advocated for that, but just a thought.


Actually, not. Curved reflectors it's just a new marketing mambo-jumbo like a parabolic umbrellas/octoboxes.
If you want eyeballs looks 3 dimensional, you need the proper general lighting and some pp kung-fu.


----------



## mrca (Jun 22, 2018)

Yes, grasshopper, I mean , sergezap. My last fiance was David Carridines ex girl friend. I agree, it's marketing.  Now, I do like octa catchlights. soft, no hard corners.   Parbolic umbrellas, my AB 6 footer when focused is a 6' hard edged spot light.   Cool effect when boomed.


----------



## sergezap (Jun 22, 2018)

mrca said:


> Yes, grasshopper, I mean , sergezap. My last fiance was David Carridines ex girl friend. I agree, it's marketing.  Now, I do like octa catchlights. soft, no hard corners.   Parbolic umbrellas, my AB 6 footer when focused is a 6' hard edged spot light.   Cool effect when boomed.


It's good idea to talk about something you know. 
Market is full of non focusable parabolic umbrellas/direct octoboxes which curvature is absolutely useless. Especially with front diffuser.
Elinchrom Deep series with deflector set is the only exception i know. 

Anyway, it's a very simple question. 
Where can we see your amazing photos with 3d effects on something, created with curved reflector/deflector/octobox/ect?


----------



## mrca (Jun 22, 2018)

I don't own a curved reflector.   The look doesn't work for me and if I want it will paint it in post by lightning the lower iris with a soft brush.  AB parabolic produces a hard edged spot light as far as 18 feet.   Here's a shot taken well before dusk overpowering day light with cool silver focused parabolic high right as spot light and main.   Used a warm beauty dish to light the jet for depth, warm advances   cool recedes. Warm bright area upper L brings eye in there  then multiple leading lines from top bottom and stripes of jet, horizon lead eye to subject who is brightest and highest contrast in image.


----------



## sergezap (Jun 22, 2018)

sergezap said:


> mrca said:
> 
> 
> > *Just a thought on the curved reflector for a semi circular catchlight in the lower eye.*  The painting masters used to lighten the lower part of the iris on the theory that the brow shadowed the upper iris making it darker and the lower iris was illuminated by the light that was usually higher than the subject.  * I wonder if that is what the curved reflector is trying to emulate and provide fill at the same time.*  I have never heard it advocated for that, but just a thought.
> ...



Why so offtopic?
How does attached image proves your point of view or challenging mine?
I told that any reflector or any other modifier wouldn't make your model or any other subject looks 3 dimensional by itself. 
I also told that any unfocusable parabolic octas does nothing extraordinary, especially with front diffuser.
How does this hard light pic connects to the discussion subject?


----------



## mrca (Jun 22, 2018)

You said "Market is full of non focusable parabolic umbrellas/direct octoboxes which curvature is absolutely useless."  I responded with a use and when you asked for an example of 3 d effects.   I do not know what that means but  I took the time to give an example they are hardly absolutely useless.   That is responding to your comment.    That parabolic with a diffuser panel and de focused also becomes a 6 foot round  soft modifier that opens quickly like an umbrella.  That is a huge use to me.   I do NOT tear down the 7' octa in studio.   It is a real hassle to take apart, reassemble on location then take apart again and re assemble in studio.  Parabolic just pops open.


----------



## sergezap (Jun 23, 2018)

Man, you don't need an "AB parabolic" to produce a hard edged light. Especially it has no sense in a such distance, cause it's relative size decreases dramatically. 
The only advantage of a huge focusable real Paras is acting as a giant ring light with some fill at the same time. Very specific lighting technique using in fashion. 
It can be very handy to control a hotspot size by focusing instead of moving all the gear. But these functionality provides Broncolor and Briese systems only. 
Even Profoto is a tricky due to insufficient eccentricity of their lightshapers.

The same story with a beauty dish. It's usable at the distance, relative to its size.
1.5-2 m is a maximum. Otherwise you'll get an ordinary spotlight. 
The only exception - if you are using a white matte dish to produce a polarized light. 
But lighting glossy aircraft with a polarized light is silly too.



 

P.S. Parabolic means that it shapes as a parabolic curve,  but not "just pops open".


----------



## mrca (Jun 23, 2018)

When focused, the AB produces a hard edged beam of light.  No fall off at all.  A spot light.   When focused, it directs the light rays in a parallel fashion.  No regular umbrella will do that.  I'm not talking about shadow edge transition.   When I want razor sharp shadow edge transitions I use flooded fresnels which lines up the light rays parallel using a lens.   Of course, I could use one to produce a "spot" but not where I don't have AC like in the shot above.   I agree,  I use my 22" beauty dish in less than 2 feet  for its form of soft  light but when I want really soft light, I use the other extreme from the fresnels, a 7' octa in a few feet away.   To return to the original catch light portion of the thread, that produces a large , round catchlight.  I am aware what "parabolic" means, but what is important is what I am trying to achieve as a photographer not geometry, it is getting the rays parallel with no lighter penumbra ringing the brighter light center of the beam.   A grid will help but usually has a penumbra. I have used that characteristic by placing the beginning of the  hotspot behind the subject and illuminating a  hillside background with the darker penumbra on that highlight side of the subject.  The hot center part of the light running past the subject on the far, subject shadow side giving chiaroscuro with one light from the wrong side.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2018)

I dunno...I went back and once again (for like the fourth time in total) re-watched the video for the Peter Hurley $5,500 LED lighting kit...I gotta say...the lighting is soft, flat,directionless,meh. The model is pretty, and has unusual expressions, but look past her attractiveness and what do we see? Flat lighting. Minimal shadowing. Very little "character" to the light. No bite. One-trick pony stuff. I really think that the kit is more about marketing and company profit than about lighting stuff. Too much "sameness" to the small set of lights...I would demand more for $5,500. I think there are other, better, more-traditional systems that would cost less, and do more. Speedotron Black Line, Elinchrom, and Eienstein would be my choices, in about that order. Other systems are out there too, some more expensive, some less so. I just think a set of four, flat-panel, flexible LED mattes with no grids, no barn doors, no flags, no scrims, etc.. is a terrible way to drop $5,500. Plus...it's LED light, no flash pops, so...motion-stopping is out. Plus, the lights are small! Longer-range use with soft light? Nope!


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2018)

Let me show you a few examples of what I've done with nothing but natural light (no reflectors or modifiers)
 
Give me $5,500 and I can show you how


----------



## sergezap (Jun 23, 2018)

A half of a subj kit for a half of an subj price.
2 strips + 1 octa + 3 flash heads.
Strange catchlight are included.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 23, 2018)

4x Compact Florescent with strip softbox kit
about $200


 
(note I only used 3 of them in this shot)


----------

