The comparison image isn't very useful - a better comparison would be using a direct flash compared to using a softbox, and the photos are composed differently, with different focal lengths. As it is it's really just showing the advantage of flash versus no flash. 121.45.221.44 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider the image on the right A comparison of a photograph taken with softbox (top) and direct flash (bottom) image. to illustrate this article. The top image was taken using a small (12X16) softbox positioned approximately 24 inches from the top of the subject (apple and plum). The bottom image was taken using the same flash and positioning but without the softbox. Additional technical information can be included if necessary. Dazzpedian (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you say "it's really just showing the advantage of flash versus no flash", I'd argue it's much worse. This picture is artificially exaggerating the differences, as the two parts are shot from different angles: Without the softbox the model's head is close to the horizon, with drab clouds giving a bright background with the model lacking fill-in light to the point it looks underexposed. Now compare the one with the softbox, which is taken from a much lower angle: The well-lit head is against the blue sky above the clouds, possibly further darkened by using a polariser. This comparison is wildly unfair and as such doing this article a disservice. Good reason to take it out, as I'll do right now.WikiPidi (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for Light Umbrella redirects to this article. Light Umbrellas and Soft Boxes are subtlety different things. Maybe another article should be written for light umbrellas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.4.83 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
