Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Lighting => Topic started by: jazzy on March 18, 2016, 08:04:39 pm
-
I plan to pick up 2 Paras, however keep changing my mind which two to get out of the 88, 133, 177, 222. I shoot fashion & commercial and things vary from small to medium set up, but not usually massive architectural set-up. What's your favourite size?
-
I've used all of them. For my use, I would put the most use into a 133, but that's me. It's big enough to squeeze a full length shot, but still light enough to put out on a megaboom for an overhead. I can't imagine using a para in an architecture situation, but that's just me (maybe I'm misreading your statement and you mean a large location shoot, not an "architecture" shoot).
-
For fashion / beauty / portraiture choose the 88. It´s fast and light, the bigger ones are easily (and cheaper) replaced with a frame.
Cheers
Ulf
-
Depending on how much space you have. For super mobile setup pick the 88 but the ultimate outdoor para i would say is the 133. Slightly bigger and heavier than the 88 but by not much. And it covers full length nicely. More flexible.
For indoor then you can pick a bigger one. Ideally 222 if you have the space to cover bigger production and if space is limited get the 177.
HR versions if you shoot video.
-
As I will be getting two, I was thinking 88 and 177, but now I'm inclined toward 88 and 133. 222 is probably more for decorative purposes than others.
-
Depends on the look you are after. If you are after the true para lighting style, none of the smaller ones (88,133,177) fully defocus (centre goes black) meaning you never get that magical outer petal multiple light source para look. That's not to say the others don't produce great light with similar characteristics, just different. 88 is a fashion shooters favourite and gives by far the most punchy light. 88 and 133 are easily manageable but 177 up are big modifiers that need lots of space so choose wisely.
-
Depends on the look you are after. If you are after the true para lighting style, none of the smaller ones (88,133,177) fully defocus (centre goes black) meaning you never get that magical outer petal multiple light source para look. That's not to say the others don't produce great light with similar characteristics, just different. 88 is a fashion shooters favourite and gives by far the most punchy light. 88 and 133 are easily manageable but 177 up are big modifiers that need lots of space so choose wisely.
The 88 is an awesome modifier. It goes completely dark in the center when defocused, as does 133 and 177 provided you use bare bulb, so I'm not sure where you get this information from.
I chose the 88 for the work I do, I love its versatility. My main comparison was the 133 for location work, even though it does not take up more space for portability the issue is that all Paras gets front heavy when defocused since the light is hanging far from the light stand. The difference is that the 133 requires a much more sturdy light stand and sand bags even when inside since the light is even further from the stand. Although you should always use sand bags for safety of course.
But bare this in mind when you're outside, the 133 either needs a lot of weight to hold it down or preferably an assistant.
-
The 88 is an awesome modifier. It goes completely dark in the center when defocused, as does 133 and 177 provided you use bare bulb, so I'm not sure where you get this information from.
From using them but I'm positive there is mention to this on bron's website or in the system brochure. The light from the 222 is quite different to the smaller paras which is down to this unique characteristic of the biger ones. The material is also less shiny in the 88/133 so spreads a bit more in the reflector when defocused. Looking down the centre of my 133 with a MobiLED head fully defocused the centre is just not totally black.
-
From using them but I'm positive there is mention to this on bron's website or in the system brochure. The light from the 222 is quite different to the smaller paras which is down to this unique characteristic of the biger ones. The material is also less shiny in the 88/133 so spreads a bit more in the reflector when defocused. Looking down the centre of my 133 with a MobiLED head fully defocused the centre is just not totally black.
It's different since it's bigger so to your eye it's more pronounced. When you check your subjects catchlights you will see it's dark in the center.
-
It's different since it's bigger so to your eye it's more pronounced. When you check your subjects catchlights you will see it's dark in the center.
The intensity of light is less in the centre for sure and it does look dark in the catchlights but that doesn't mean that light in the centre has no significance to the lighting quality. A Para 88/133 does not produce the same lighting quality as a 222 and looking down the centre of a small para when defocused reveals thats because they don't go dark in the centre, however looking down the centre of a big para there in no illumination in the centre.
Heck I love all the Para's but the different sizes do look quite different and I felt it was worth a mention.
-
The intensity of light is less in the centre for sure and it does look dark in the catchlights but that doesn't mean that light in the centre has no significance to the lighting quality. A Para 88/133 does not produce the same lighting quality as a 222 and looking down the centre of a small para when defocused reveals thats because they don't go dark in the centre, however looking down the centre of a big para there in no illumination in the centre.
Heck I love all the Para's but the different sizes do look quite different and I felt it was worth a mention.
Well, it would be weird if the light quality was the same from a 2m+ diameter modifier and a sub 1m diameter modifier...?
-
I don't think you understand my point, a 222 for example does not light up like a 2m wide reflector as you claim. Defocused the big paras are made up of lots of very small specular light sources at the very tip of the reflector so looks completely different to a 2m wide modifier and resulting output is quite different also to the smaller paras.
-
I don't think you understand my point, a 222 for example does not light up like a 2m wide reflector as you claim. Defocused the big paras are made up of lots of very small specular light sources at the very tip of the reflector so looks completely different to a 2m wide modifier and resulting output is quite different also to the smaller paras.
I have never compared a Para to a regular reflector, we're talking light quality of the smaller paras vs the larger. And of course a bigger light modifier will produce different results than a smaller.
But here's an example. I have attached a shot of my own Para 88, defocused and a screen grab of a tutorial from Karl Taylor and Urs Recher with the Para 222. Judge for yourself if the results are as different as you say. I would argue the difference is pretty much size only and not some kind of magical quality to the inner material.
Anyway, this is pretty much a meta discussion about basically nothing at all. The point is, the larger the source, the softer it is. It all depends on what you will be shooting that dictates how large you want your source to be. The Paras differ in the fact that the light can be soft, hard and anything in between.
-
I have never compared a Para to a regular reflector, we're talking light quality of the smaller paras vs the larger. And of course a bigger light modifier will produce different results than a smaller.
But here's an example. I have attached a shot of my own Para 88, defocused and a screen grab of a tutorial from Karl Taylor and Urs Recher with the Para 222. Judge for yourself if the results are as different as you say. I would argue the difference is pretty much size only and not some kind of magical quality to the inner material.
Anyway, this is pretty much a meta discussion about basically nothing at all. The point is, the larger the source, the softer it is. It all depends on what you will be shooting that dictates how large you want your source to be. The Paras differ in the fact that the light can be soft, hard and anything in between.
Just compared that to my para133 and b1 plus dome. Err looks nothing like that haha
-
Just compared that to my para133 and b1 plus dome. Err looks nothing like that haha
A B1 will never be optimal with a Para since it has a built in reflector. The dome should make it better, but not near as perfect as a bare head. My example is with a AcuteB2 head.
Still, your result should be better than that with the dome. Try setting the B1 to its lowest power setting instead and stop down your lens. That will be a more accurate representation of how the light will spread.
-
I have used them all and own the 88 and 133 - I think they are the most practical and versatile. They are my two favorite light modifiers.
-
I always think about what happens when I have to travel and/or set everything up myself, no assistants. My choice is the Para 133.