# How does the size of a modifier affect light coverage?

How does the size of the modifier affect coverage? I watched a YouTube video yesterday comparing different size umbrellas, wherein they claimed that the size of the modifier does not affect the area of coverage, but only the hardness/softness of the light. Can someone confirm that this is true ONLY if you change no other variables – specifically the intensity of the light and the distance from the subject? I’m trying to reconcile this with some things I’ve read about beauty dishes, such that a larger dish (than say 22”) is needed for 3/4 and full body portraits.

• Photography is not a pen & paper game. In real life, other variables do change. Maybe a 22" worked for a 3/4 for some photographer with their setup, it might even work for some majority of photographers, but not necessarily for you. It looks like you are very concerned about making the best possible prediction on what you need, which is fine. But in the end, photography is a game of experience, go get some by renting that 22" for a day or two and see if it works for you or not.
– null
Jul 23, 2018 at 16:08
• My question is a theoretical one -- not about any specific modifier or practical application. Photography is a pencil and paper game insofar as it follows the laws of physics. Armed with such information, I can make better use of my time experimenting and eventually practicing. It's how I learn photography.
– bvy
Jul 23, 2018 at 18:33
• Minus one? Please explain how I can improve the question.
– bvy
Jul 23, 2018 at 19:33

I consider that channel a good source of tips. But in this case, they are making a not so good job. Let me explain some flaws and "omissions" on the video.

Do you see that big bright hotspot on the center of the umbrella?

DAM! if you have a 72-inch umbrella, but you put the flash 10 inches away from it you are wasting it... It is almost the same as if you have a half size umbrella. (It is the same case if you have a reflective or a translucent one)

They never ever consider the distance of the flash to the umbrella.

Here is an example with a simulated softbox with a strobe located very close to the fabric (A), further away (B), and probably with a secondary diffuser (C). This makes a real difference on how this modifier diffuses the light. In case (A) you are wasting your big diffuser.

This "internal distance" (literally inside the softbox) can be somehow "added" to the distance to your subject, and this distance from the light to the subject is one of the factors that affect coverage.

But it is not the only omission on the video.

Any concave reflective umbrella has to some extent a "focusing" effect. Of course, not all are close to parabolic, but they all have it, and one of the variables to "focus a beam" is the distance from the internal light to the focal point.

The more focused beam, the less the coverage of the light (regardless of the diffusion) A lot of flashes have a "zoom" feature. They are all hard spotlights, but you can focus the beam, and this affects how much light is on what area.

## Some factors that can affect the coverage of the light are:

• Distance from the modifier to the subject.

• Distance from the light source to the modifier.

• Characteristics of the material of the modifier. For reflective ones the glossiness or diffuseness of the surface. For "thru" materials, the translucency of the material.

• The shape of the modifier.

• Size of the modifier.

• The "flagging" of the modifier. You can add grids, or flags to stop light from spilling. Add some more variables here with the distance from the flags to the modifier and the distance to the subject.

• A subjective measure of the falloff. If you still have light, you still have light!

How does the size of a modifier affect light coverage?

You tell me! How much fall-off vs. softness are you willing to take, on your full-size portraits?

There are two scenarios on how you want to play with the distance vs fall-off relationship.

You want a fast fall-off but illuminating a big area.

You don't care that much about the diffusiveness of the light, but want to minimize the fall off.

The bigger the light, the further away can be (vs a smaller one) maintaining the same relative "diffuseness", but reducing the noticeable fall-off from the closest part to the rest.

So, in any case... the bigger the better.

is needed for 3/4 and full body portraits

No modifier is "needed". It is a matter of style. Is your subject female? Male? A kid, an old cowboy with a nice white beard and hat?

You can use a single direct flash without any modifier, you can bounce it, reflect it, use a window, a softbox, a dish, a handheld flashlight, or paint your subject in phosphorescent make-up.

You need to choose what look you want.

In my opinion, a softbox is more versatile than a beauty dish. One interesting to try is a strip box.

The size of the light modifier does not affect coverage. This is because the modifier is not the light source, the flash inside of it is. Think of it this way: You have a 3' soft box which has an area of 9 sf, and the flash inside of it illuminates 8 sf of the total area. If the box was 56 feet you'd still have an area of 8 sf being illuminated. The only time the size of the modifier affects coverage is when you go to a smaller one. Say, for example, you went from a 3' to a 1', in this case the light output from the flash exceeds the total area of the soft box thus reducing coverage.

Here's an interesting article that goes into much greater detail: http://photographic-academy.com/lighting/86-lighting/145-modifiers-do-not-make-lights-larger

• That linked article is too simple-minded. Softboxes have foil-lined reflective interiors (wrinkled a bit). Instead of a narrow fresnel speedlight, they use bare-bulb studio lights so that the flash tubes can output light at up to 180 degrees in there. This of course reflects every which way inside the box, many paths, multiple times, affecting angles of diffusion. But yes, the standard rule of thumb for sufficiently soft lights is about size (about the angles of large), specifically to place it at a distance about equal to its diameter, to cover about that diameter at the subject. Jul 23, 2018 at 17:34
• If you're not lighting the entire modifier, then the unlit part really doesn't matter at all, and there'd be no reason that unlit portion of the modifier would create a softer light. So I don't think that's what the video is trying to say. Jan 12, 2019 at 7:05