abSolute KeLviN  wrote:
The same is true of a softbox. After 15ft, it starts to look more like a hard light source, without any wrap. In very close distances, a snoot will usually "wrap" more than a grid will.

Both are true.

As the softbox is pulled away from the subject, the size of the light relative to your subject grows smaller and the light becomes effectively a hard light. This is just like the sun - big object far away = hard light.

The snoot wraps more because the light is less directional than a grid.

abSolute KeLviN  wrote:

Oddly, with the invention of digital cameras, I find that simplistic physics descriptions  kind of fail to explain light the way I've come to know it.

To me, light acts more like a substance that has volume, and is prone to stray or expand the moment it becomes unconfined. As soon as it leaves the snoot or grid, it seems to expand it's volume considerably near the point of release and travel in multiple directions, but as distance increases, the main volume of light travels in a relatively straight line.

In practice, the effect of the light from either device is considerably different at 1' then it is at 20'.

The same is true of a softbox. After 15ft, it starts to look more like a hard light source, without any wrap. In very close distances, a snoot will usually "wrap" more than a grid will.

Well, as far as any teacher of photography will tell you, the development of the digital sensor to replace film (which is really all that has changed) has absolutely no impact on the physics of light.  If you read up in any lighting book for photography instead of relying on your subjective perception which varies for every individual, or read up on angles off the rail in shooting pool, straight lines, angles of incidence and reflectance haven't changed in many hundreds of years. Light is not like water,

The effect of the light at various distances is a different issus entirely and was not what the OP asked.  The apparent softness or hardness of light edges from a softbox (contrast) is also based on physics and the inverse sqare law on distances.  One evening workshop with a pro lighting teacher will help you with the basic principles which you can then apply, as you subjectively perceive, any way you like.
Hope this helps.

Lumondo Photography wrote:

Both are true.

As the softbox is pulled away from the subject, the size of the light relative to your subject grows smaller and the light becomes effectively a hard light. This is just like the sun - big object far away = hard light.

The snoot wraps more because the light is less directional than a grid.

Absolutely correct.  Thanks.

David Pankhurst Photo wrote:

Well, as far as any teacher of photography will tell you, the development of the digital sensor to replace film (which is really all that has changed) has absolutely no impact on the physics of light.  If you read up in any lighting book for photography instead of relying on your subjective perception which varies for every individual, or read up on angles off the rail in shooting pool, straight lines, angles of incidence and reflectance haven't changed in many hundreds of years. Light is not like water,

The effect of the light at various distances is a different issus entirely and was not what the OP asked.  The apparent softness or hardness of light edges from a softbox (contrast) is also based on physics and the inverse sqare law on distances.  One evening workshop with a pro lighting teacher will help you with the basic principles which you can then apply, as you subjectively perceive, any way you like.
Hope this helps.

Um... yeah... It's not the sensor that changes the light, it's that the sensitivity of the sensor is able to show what light does in practice from a visual and effect standpoint in real time. (vs film/lab/print)

The concept of "wrap" defies what physics says about light moving in a straight line, or at least our perception of it. Even at a distance of 10 feet with a grid or a snoot (hard source) on close magnification you will notice some wrap, e.g. not an extremely sharp edge, but instead some degree of falloff. As the distance increases, the line between light and shadow appears sharper. That suggests to me that light  bends as it travels around objects in the same way that Albert E and the gang suggested, ie that gravity or the presence of an object can affect the lines that light travels.

That said, it is a relevant part of the discussion depending on how hard the light should chisel the subject for the desired effect. At 20', the differences between a grid and a snoot are negligible, but at less than 5', they would (might?) be noticeable.

Ever seen the diagrams of how different lens' collect light? Film cams lens' collect from multiple directions, and digital lens' are supposedly corrected to bring light in from only one direction. Those diagrams remind me of how light leaves different attachments, fresnel being the straightest and most directional source.

abSolute KeLviN  wrote:
Grid is the only way to go. I'll never go back to snoots - too much spill, and too much loss of volume.

The only configuration I'd like to see in a snoot is a rectangle that is a 2" x 12" slot that could be used as a full body kicker. Never seen one though...

Cinefoil causes a bit too much loss of light.  I use regular aluminum foil to create my own snoots on an as needed basis.  There is less light loss and the shape is easily controlled.

Meehan wrote:
Snoots are sooo 80's

Actually i learned to love snoots back in the early 70's..still do. But I often use grids as well. In fact my snoots often have small grids in them too. BTW..doe this make me "snooty"? Sorry ..couldn't resist..probably be damning the missing edit button again SOON. LOL!