# Upgrading to Godox/Flashpoint AD400 Strobes



## adamhiram

20191127-DSC_5960a by adamhiram, on Flickr

I recently upgraded from TT600 speedlights to bigger AD400 monolights following a prior discussion and some great Black Friday sales.  I started this thread to share some of my thoughts on transitioning to bigger lights as well as create a convenient place to ask questions, which I seem to have a lot of.

Some initial observations:

These lights are huge compared to speedlights.  By volume, the AD400 is about 6x the size, but it doesn’t exactly fit in my camera bag.  The case it comes with is about 20x as big.  Practically speaking, this basically just means carrying an extra case for each light, unless I pickup a dedicated case for lighting gear.
The increase in weight is significant as well.  The light itself is about 4.5x as heavy, but is closer to 8x with the case.  For 3 lights, this means going from transporting around 3lbs to more than 26lbs.
The power output is impressive, as expected.  I metered it at almost exactly 4x as bright as a TT600 at full power.  The modeling light is pretty bright as well, at least for studio use.
Recycle time is incredible.  As I mentioned in another thread, reviews typically focus on recycle time at full power, and 1s between shots at 400Ws is already pretty impressive.  But at 1/32 power, I can shoot continuously at 10fps.  At 1/16 power I am still at 9fps.  Even at 1/8 power which is equivalent to where I typically max out with speedlights, a can still shoot reliably at 4fps with no misfires.  So far, this seems to me like the biggest benefit to upgrading to bigger lights.
I will also add that I haven't gotten much use from the modeling lights so far, although I can certainly see their value.  Practicing on myself, I obviously can't see anything without taking test shots, and when photographing a preschooler, I am more likely to opt for a lighting pattern with wider coverage and even shoot a bit wide to keep a fidgety subject in the frame, so precise light placement isn't critical there.  However it was still helpful in placing a grid spot on the background without a half dozen test shots and adjustments, and feathering the key light to minimize spill on the background was much quicker to do in real time.  Hair light placement was a breeze as well, albeit an exercise in futility with the aforementioned preschooler.  I'm sure I will get more use out of the modeling lights when I have a chance to work with an adult subject, other than myself.


----------



## adamhiram

I wanted to understand the differences in working with bigger lights, so I setup both TT600 speedlights and AD400 monolights and ran them through their paces.

The first test I ran was to see how the spread differed when used as a background light.  Each light was positioned 5’ from a gray seamless background, which is pretty typical for the space I have to work with.  The speedlight was used bare and zoomed to its widest setting (20mm), while the monolight was used with the stock 4” reflector.  The difference is pretty noticeable in these test shots, with the monolight having a much more uniform spread.  In practice I don’t know how much difference this really makes - for a half body portrait, I would be cropped in much tighter, often with a larger aperture, and focused 2-3’ in front of the light stand.  When using a painted canvas backdrop, any unevenness becomes even less noticeable.  However I’m glad to see this improvement here if needed.




20191127-DSC_5897a by adamhiram, on Flickr

Something I commonly use in headshots and some creative portraits is a grid spot behind the subject.  With speedlights, I use a Rogue Flash Grid, which can be configured for different spreads, and has worked very well for me.  Since I don’t have this capability out of the box with the monolight, I picked up the inexpensive barn door and grid attachment for the AD400, hoping it would have a narrow enough spread to be useful.  As you can see in the examples below, it’s not bad, but really not the right grid.  The barn doors helped control spill, but didn't really add anything otherwise.  Would my best bet be to pickup a standard 7” Bowens mount reflector and a set of grids to achieve this effect?




20191127-DSC_5901a by adamhiram, on Flickr


----------



## adamhiram

This purpose of this next example was to illustrates the quality of light from a speedlight vs. monolight inside of a double-diffused softbox and the same power output.  To be honest, I don’t see much difference once inside the modifier.




20191127-DSC_5932a by adamhiram, on Flickr

I was also curious how the spread differed looking at the front of the softbox.  In this example, the light is double-diffused, with the flash firing forward and no deflector disk.  As expected, the speedlight creates a slight hotspot in the center, since it is firing forward through a fresnel lens.  The monolight creates more even light from its bare bulb, although it has the opposite effect with light spilling around the inner diffusion.  This difference wasn’t particularly noticible by the time the light hit the subject.




20191127-DSC_5956a by adamhiram, on Flickr

Using a larger modifier, like a 12”x56” strip box that also included a deflector plate, the difference was a little more noticeable, with the speedlight producing a brighter hotspot in the center, and with more falloff towards the outer edges.  I didn’t test how this difference showed when lighting a subject, but in this case power became a bigger differentiator anyway.


----------



## JBPhotog

Congrats on the major upgrade, the Ad400’s are really nice units.

Get a grid set that works with your holder, typically they come in 10, 20, 30 and 40 degree set. Dispense with the barn doors since they are virtually useless on strobes for cutting with a grid(the grid is doing the cutting anyway). Spill with a grid is best handled with a flag if there is any, in most cases there won’t be. Barn doors can come in handy to C-47 a gel in front of a grid rather than tape, heat melts adhesive.

One advantage of decent modelling lights are to reduce the size of the subjects pupil. This creates more natural eye colour and prevents them looking like they are on some illicit drugs.


----------



## smoke665

@adamhiram interesting write-up. I think you'll find there are still some cases where speedlights are better on location, but in studio you'll find the strobes better. One thing that's helped me in lighting placement in studio is working in a darkened space, using the modeling lights for lighting. By switching them on one by one, it makes it easier to see the placement. As you get into more complex setups with more then 3 lights the modeling lights become essential.

I just completed a series of Christmas shots, on 7 children ranging in age from 3 to 7.  Lighting them is as you say more a zone approach, but I've found that rear ends on a chair, feet off the floor, and something to hold, goes a long way toward minimizing movement.

Looking forward to seeing your next project with your son, seeing him always makes me smile.


----------



## Derrel

Good write-up I hope you have a great time with these new lights, they really sound fantastic .One second recycle at 400 watt seconds really does sound great


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> Get a grid set that works with your holder, typically they come in 10, 20, 30 and 40 degree set.


That's the plan!  It's a shame - I was hoping the accessory kit would do the trick, as it is much more compact and even fits in the existing case.  I didn't have much interest in the barn door attachment, but the stock 4" reflector has a nice even spread, and the attachment holds both gels and a grid.  I don't mind cutting out 4" circles from larger gel sheets, but unfortunately the grid just isn't tight enough, and I don't know of any other options that will fit in a proprietary 4" holder.  Looks like I'll likely go with something like this, which is along the lines of what you mentioned.



JBPhotog said:


> One advantage of decent modelling lights are to reduce the size of the subjects pupil.


This was mentioned in a prior post, and after looking back at older portraits I've done, does not seem to be an issue most of the time.  I tend to keep my makeshift living room studio moderately lit with indirect lighting, and just kill the ambient through camera settings, so I didn't notice any particularly large pupils.  This definitely makes sense shooting in a darker environment, but most of the time is not how I have worked.


----------



## adamhiram

smoke665 said:


> One thing that's helped me in lighting placement in studio is working in a darkened space, using the modeling lights for lighting. By switching them on one by one, it makes it easier to see the placement. As you get into more complex setups with more then 3 lights the modeling lights become essential.


Great advice, and definitely something I will keep in mind!  I think it will be a while before I start working with more than 3 lights, although it's nice to have the option of still using my speedlights on the same wireless system.



smoke665 said:


> I just completed a series of Christmas shots, on 7 children ranging in age from 3 to 7. Lighting them is as you say more a zone approach, but I've found that rear ends on a chair, feet off the floor, and something to hold, goes a long way toward minimizing movement.


I hope everything went well once you got your lighting dialed in, and hopefully the older kids were more cooperative than the little ones can be!  I've definitely picked up some tricks to keeping a younger subject in place, from giving him something to hold, to having him sit on a seat, to marking the floor with masking tape so I know where to put the seat back after he moves it, and even weighing it down with sandbags so he can't move it.


----------



## Derrel

Looking at the link you provided earlier to the grid set am I wrong or is it $16.75 cheaper to buy the Grid set and the reflector as separate items?

I think that a 7 inch reflector would be the best first size to get for most grid uses.


----------



## adamhiram

Derrel said:


> Looking at the link you provided earlier to the grid set am I wrong or is it $16.75 cheaper to buy the Grid set and the reflector as separate items?
> I think that a 7 inch reflector would be the best first size to get for most grid uses.


Good catch, what a strange way to price it.  Looks like I'll eventually need to repurchase gels as well - I think my last set was from Lee but precut for smaller lights, not sure if there's much difference between those and Rosco.  I just wish it wasn't $7 a sheet for specific colors if I don't want an entire gel set!


----------



## smoke665

adamhiram said:


> I hope everything went well once you got your lighting dialed in, and hopefully the older kids were more cooperative than the little ones can be



They all had their moments. Having *everything* dialed in before hand is the key. Camera was on a tripod, theathered to Lr, I used f7.1 as the aperture for a good DOF, and had the focus set to selected  multiple points, to cover the area their faces would be in, that allowed me to watch them, not the camera, while firing away. I had intended on trying facial tracking, but forgot all about it. 

One added thought on modeling lights, in big soft boxes heat isn't as much a factor, but reflectors and snoots can get warm fast. Add grids and they get real hot, something to remember if using gels. Normally once dialed in I turn those modeling lights off.


----------



## adamhiram

smoke665 said:


> Having *everything* dialed in before hand is the key. Camera was on a tripod, theathered to Lr, I used f7.1 as the aperture for a good DOF, and had the focus set to selected multiple points, to cover the area their faces would be in, that allowed me to watch them, not the camera, while firing away. I had intended on trying facial tracking, but forgot all about it.


Same here, minus the tethering.  Rather than focusing for each shot, I often pre-focus for the first shot and make sure to have sufficient DoF that as long as the chair doesn't move, the eyes will stay in focus.  For a recent shoot, 8' distance at 85mm, f/8 meant about 5" in either direction was okay and I could interact with the subject more.  With a basic 1-3 light setup, I still don't see a drastic difference with modeling lights for pre-setup.  It speeds up the process, sure, but a few test shots from speedlights to get everything positioned, a few more to meter flash power, and I'm all set. 



smoke665 said:


> One added thought on modeling lights, in big soft boxes heat isn't as much a factor, but reflectors and snoots can get warm fast. Add grids and they get real hot, something to remember if using gels. Normally once dialed in I turn those modeling lights off.


This was a big factor in waiting to get bigger strobes - Flashpoint/Godox have similar powered lights for under $100 that are A/C powered and use halogen modeling lights.  Safety was a big concern with the little one around, and hot bulbs combined with trip hazards seemed like an accident waiting to happen.  These strobes use LED modeling lights which should definitely help with that, although at this brightness they still generate a good amount of heat.


----------



## smoke665

adamhiram said:


> Rather than focusing for each shot, I often pre-focus for the first shot and make sure to have sufficient DoF that as long as the chair doesn't move, the eyes will stay in focus. For a recent shoot, 8' distance at 85mm, f/8 meant about 5" in either direction was okay and I could interact with the subject more. With a basic 1-3 light setup, I still don't see a drastic difference with modeling lights for pre-setup



With basic setups you can get by with trial and error, but still it's easier to use the modeling lights. I keep my modeling lights set to track the power setting, so working in a darkened studio is essential for me to be able to see. I've developed a feel for the lights and modifiers, so I can get pretty close, then flip on the lights and fine tune. You'll be surprised how much easier it is to see the light in real time, especially if you kill the ambient.

I've never been happy with zone focus on studio shots, I'm to anal about eyes. Using the select multi focus on tripod, 50mm, f7.1 and 15 ft away kept enough DOF to get the whole set in focus. Select multi focus on the subject assured me good sharpness on the eyes. If your camera supports it facial tracking isn't a bad idea on little ones, where you're working with a more limited DOF.


----------



## adamhiram

Just because I am currently looking into a new set of colored gels, here's a link to a similar thread from @Nwcid from last year.  I don't see much of a difference between offerings from Rosco and Lee Filters, but I liked the colors from my last set from Lee that I used with my speedlights (via RogueFlash), so leaning towards those unless someone has a strong recommendation otherwise.

Rosco Photo Lighting Filter Kit (20 sheets)
Lee Filters Master Location Pack (36 sheets)


----------



## Nwcid

adamhiram said:


> Just because I am currently looking into a new set of colored gels, here's a link to a similar thread from @Nwcid from last year.  I don't see much of a difference between offerings from Rosco and Lee Filters, but I liked the colors from my last set from Lee that I used with my speedlights (via RogueFlash), so leaning towards those unless someone has a strong recommendation otherwise.
> 
> Rosco Photo Lighting Filter Kit (20 sheets)
> Lee Filters Master Location Pack (36 sheets)



Not a direct answer, but I updated the other post with what I ended up with.  

I ended up getting: 
2 of the 7" reflectors, https://www.adorama.com/semr7.html
2 barn door sets, https://www.adorama.com/fplfbd.html which come with 3 colors and a basic grid
1 set of gels, https://www.adorama.com/lemlocp.html I did cut mine down fit in the barn door slot and the left over strips fit over a speed light well.


----------



## adamhiram

Nwcid said:


> I ended up getting:
> 2 of the 7" reflectors, https://www.adorama.com/semr7.html
> 2 barn door sets, https://www.adorama.com/fplfbd.html which come with 3 colors and a basic grid
> 1 set of gels, https://www.adorama.com/lemlocp.html I did cut mine down fit in the barn door slot and the left over strips fit over a speed light well.


Thanks for the update, really appreciate it!


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> Just because I am currently looking into a new set of colored gels, here's a link to a similar thread from @Nwcid from last year.  I don't see much of a difference between offerings from Rosco and Lee Filters, but I liked the colors from my last set from Lee that I used with my speedlights (via RogueFlash), so leaning towards those unless someone has a strong recommendation otherwise.
> 
> Rosco Photo Lighting Filter Kit (20 sheets)
> Lee Filters Master Location Pack (36 sheets)



 I have both Lee and Rosco and they are high quality gels. FWIW, Lee seems to be more popular in the east and Rosco in the west. There are slight differences between the colour correcting gels between brands so you may want to keep them sorted if gelling more than one light with mixed gel brands.

Of the two kits you mentioned, the Rosco has more neutral density gels but you will have the luxury of 1/10 stop adjustment with the Flashpoint XPLOR 400's so they may not be of much use. Furthermore, you get two sheets of the Colour Correction gels in the Lee kit so gelling two heads is right out of the box simple.


----------



## zombiesniper

Congrats on the upgrade and great write up. 
One more use for the modelling light is when shooting people with glasses you can easily see if you have a reflection. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack

Next: start tethering.

I'm tethering at every opportunity when shooting now.  Incredibly useful to see an image at 100% while you are shooting and not relying on the sh*t LCD panel to make big decisions -- especially focus and DOF.







Here you can see the red highlight clipping turned on.  Here I was making sure I wasn't blowing out anything and working on getting even fill.


----------



## JBPhotog

Now available for pre-order, the Flashpoint XPLOR 400 Extension Flash heads are options one might consider when booming on location. This can help reduce the ballast necessary to keep your stand upright, I have them for my heavier Godox AD600.

https://www.adorama.com/fplfxp400p.html


----------



## adamhiram

Does anyone know if there is a way to tell what power the flash fired at when used in TTL mode?  I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell it hides flash power when switched to TTL, which would be a pretty useful thing to be able to see.


----------



## Braineack

JBPhotog said:


> Now available for pre-order, the Flashpoint XPLOR 400 Extension Flash heads are options one might consider when booming on location. This can help reduce the ballast necessary to keep your stand upright, I have them for my heavier Godox AD600.
> 
> https://www.adorama.com/fplfxp400p.html



you can see I'm using that in the picture above -- just for the 600.   well worth it.  I can also put the strobe on a monopod and have an assistant hand hold it that way.






the guts/battery is hanging on the stand.


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> Does anyone know if there is a way to tell what power the flash fired at when used in TTL mode?  I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell it hides flash power when switched to TTL, which would be a pretty useful thing to be able to see.



Short answer is no.

Long answer, it's the cameras light sensor that tells the flash when to stop and the flash would have to determine that duration and calculate the actual flash output. Keeping this in mind using TTL can actually get you to a lower output setting that the lowest manual setting, such as 1/256 power.


----------



## smoke665

Braineack said:


> Next: start tethering.



I like tethering when I'm on tripod, but shooting handheld I'm to clumsy. Have you experienced transfer lag time on? I've heard, but not tried it, that you can remove the camera SD cards to speed up the process.


----------



## Braineack

I've found it pretty fast, even on my old laptap.  Just a second or two.  Doesn't seem any faster in jpg, never tried removing the SD Card, I'd prefer to keep it in just in case the cord comes out while shooting so they get stored.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> adamhiram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if there is a way to tell what power the flash fired at when used in TTL mode?  I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell it hides flash power when switched to TTL, which would be a pretty useful thing to be able to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short answer is no.
> 
> Long answer, it's the cameras light sensor that tells the flash when to stop and the flash would have to determine that duration and calculate the actual flash output. Keeping this in mind using TTL can actually get you to a lower output setting that the lowest manual setting, such as 1/256 power.
Click to expand...

Not a big loss, I suppose.  I think I've seen this done with Profoto gear, but it didn't seem particularly useful in a studio environment where I'm likely to meter each light anyway.


----------



## Nwcid

smoke665 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next: start tethering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like tethering when I'm on tripod, but shooting handheld I'm to clumsy. Have you experienced transfer lag time on? I've heard, but not tried it, that you can remove the camera SD cards to speed up the process.
Click to expand...


I love tethering whenever it is practical, especially if using lighting.  I always seem to get much closer to an exact exposure then when using my LCD.

I am also clumsy, but I clamp the cord to the table on the computer side. 

My understanding is that using Capture 1 is very fast, I just tether into LR.  It usually only takes 1-2 seconds to show up on the screen and I am using a D850 with huge files.

I also keep my cards in as the image can only go to one place.  I think there is a way to do both on Cannon, but not on Nikon. I have had times when I may need/want to untether for a moment or for some reason it does have a connection error.


----------



## adamhiram

Quick update...  I used the modeling light on one of the AD400s as a video light today and it was more than bright enough.  I used it inside of a 38" octobox with the brightness turned up to 100%, and probably could have turned it down to half power.  Other than the fan noise which really wasn't too bad, pretty usable!


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> Quick update...  I used the modeling light on one of the AD400s as a video light today and it was more than bright enough.  I used it inside of a 38" octobox with the brightness turned up to 100%, and probably could have turned it down to half power.  Other than the fan noise which really wasn't too bad, pretty usable!



According to my light meter, the 38 watt LED in the AD600 is equivalent to a 250 watt modelling light so the 30 watt LED in the AD400/XPLOR 400 is not far off that.


----------



## Derrel

You can use those modeling lights as what-you-see-is-what-you-get as far as establishing ratios. Keep in mind you can use equal lights and vary the distance or you can use lights of different Power and you can achieve much the same thing. Modeling lights which are proportional in power to the flash output allow you to quickly establish your lighting setups without constant need for either test shots or Flash meter readings.


----------



## adamhiram

I ordered a gel from Adorama in a specific color, so I had to get a large 24"x21" sheet and planned to cut it into smaller pieces.  For the record, it's a chocolate brown color that is similar to Full CTO but with less yellow.  It came well-packaged, although I thought it was odd that it came with "tamper-proof" tape covering only one end even though it can be opened from either end.  However when I took the gel out, it was in rough shape as if it had been previously used on a few shoots, then returned.  However I also assume this is what it will look like after some use anyway, and none of the blemishes show through when I taped it to a soft box to shine light through from behind.

Is it normal for a brand new gel to arrive in this condition?
Will it make any difference in my shooting if I just keep it?
Is it worth the hassle of returning?



20191207-DSC_5974a by adamhiram, on Flickr




20191207-DSC_5994a by adamhiram, on Flickr




20191207-DSC_5975a by adamhiram, on Flickr


----------



## JBPhotog

I’d say you got a used gel, new ones come completely blemish free. However I haven’t bought them from Adorama but would say this shouldn’t be the way they get them from Lee or Rosco.

You’ll have to decide what action you want to take up with Adorama but it is worth investigating if you plan on buying more gels from them.


----------



## adamhiram

Thanks @JBPhotog, thats what I figured.  It could be worse, at least my strobes came intact - I’ve seen some horror stories posted in the Godox Facebook group following Adorama’s Black Friday sale.  On the other hand, this is the 8th item that has arrived damaged in the past 2 weeks, most of which were holiday gifts from Amazon.

Looks like I’ll be calling Adorama for a replacement when they open tomorrow.


----------



## Derrel

8 damaged items in 2 weeks time? That sounds simply unacceptable to me.


----------



## adamhiram

Derrel said:


> 8 damaged items in 2 weeks time? That sounds simply unacceptable to me.


Oops, I miscounted.  9 items in 2 weeks, 7 of them from Amazon.


----------



## Derrel

That's good for the correction. Your comment about eight items in two weeks from Adorama was really bad publicity for them and I am glad you have corrected it.


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 damaged items in 2 weeks time? That sounds simply unacceptable to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, I miscounted.  9 items in 2 weeks, 7 of them from Amazon.
Click to expand...


You aren't the recipient of theses guys are you?


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> You aren't the recipient of theses guys are you?


Not quite that bad!  Mostly just insufficient packaging - small box in a big box with no packing material, or something fragile thrown into a mylar bag.  Amazon seems to be cutting costs by eliminating packing material this holiday season.


----------



## smoke665

@adamhiram you must be the sacrificial customer, the one that gets all the problems. We've mostly eliminated shopping in stores, as DW has become highly proficient with online shopping, and with her compromised immune system we avoid crowds anyhow. Of all the package delivered this past year we haven't had a single damaged one. That 2nd picture of the gel doesn't look used, it looks like someone threw it down on a gravel drive and stomped on it. If I'd received that, I would have gone ballistic on someone. Simple mistakes can happen, but that was totally unacceptable.


----------



## adamhiram

Derrel said:


> Your comment about eight items in two weeks from Adorama was really bad publicity for them and I am glad you have corrected it.


Add 5 more to the list...  I had intended on doing a reshoot of some portraits I took with speedlights using monolights to do a comparison, but alas more delays.

The return of the damaged gel was pretty simply, but after almost a week with no updates, I checked online and the replacement was backordered.  I called Adorama for additional information, only to find out they had no ETA on when it would be back in stock.  I had them issue a refund an ordered it from elsewhere.  So much hassle for a $7 consumable I had planned on using a week ago.

I also picked up 4 more sandbags to use with light stands, as they are now a bit top-heavy with bigger lights.  2 days later, the wrong items arrived.  Instead of basic 10lb sandbags, I got water bottle holders that hang from a hook.  To complicate things further, the packaging actually had the right part number on them, so apparently everything is mislabeled in their warehouse.  They quickly made it right and will be sending out new items shortly, but again, a lot of unnecessary hassle.

It seems like Adorama is having some issues this holiday season, but at least their customer support seems to be putting in the effort to make things right.  Hopefully I will be able to share some comparison photos between speedlight and monolight studio portraits soon.


----------



## smoke665

Wow!!! In our pine trees, we  leave one tree untreated as a sacrificial tree to attract all the pine beetles. Thank you @adamhiram  it appears you are our "sacrificial tree" this year.   All kidding aside, I know that must be frustrating, and the kind of customer service you've received is unacceptable. I had my turn in the barrel this week. I ordered some prints that are to be framed and given as Christmas gifts that were supposed to be here yesterday. They arrived in Birmingham on Wednesday morning according to tracking (I'm 50 miles north). Wednesday night they showed up on tracking in Mobile, AL, 300 miles to the south. Yesterday they went to Montgomery, AL, arriving back in Birmingham, at 2 pm yesterday afternoon. They sat there until noon today, when they were shipped somewhere else (says to destination), but until someone scans them again don't have a clue what the "destination" will be.


----------



## JBPhotog

I suggest adamhiran you buy a lottery ticket, all that bad luck has to turn good some day.


----------



## adamhiram

adamhiram said:


> Add 5 more to the list...


...And add another one from Adorama, making it 6 issues with them now.  I received a light stand today, identical to the 4 others I have, and the first/lowest section will not stay up.  No matter how much I tighten the tension screw, it cannot hold any weight whatsoever and immediately collapses.  I know they're doing a lot of volume during the holiday season, but this is just unacceptable.  At least my issues with Amazon have just been insufficient packaging; Adorama is just sending me broken stuff now.  For anyone counting, my 2019 holiday shopping total is now up to 14 damaged, defective, or incorrect items.


----------



## Nwcid

adamhiram said:


> I also picked up 4 more sandbags to use with light stands, as they are now a bit top-heavy with bigger lights.



I had the same problem when putting my AD600's up on stand especially with modifiers on it.  I had to use a lot of weight and still sometimes felt semi uncomfortable.  

During the recent sales I picked up extensions so you can remote mount the bulb from the body.  Here is the version for your light, https://www.adorama.com/fplfxp400p.html  I had an opportunity to use them last week and it made a huge difference.  The AD600 is almost 2lbs heavier then the 400, but being able to mount that weight low on the stand made it much more stable.  Mine are only 6' and I wish they were just a little longer so at 8' your version should be perfect.  I will be shooting with this set up again on Monday and I will try and grab an image.


----------



## adamhiram

Nwcid said:


> During the recent sales I picked up extensions so you can remote mount the bulb from the body. Here is the version for your light, https://www.adorama.com/fplfxp400p.html I had an opportunity to use them last week and it made a huge difference.


Thanks, I think at least one of those will eventually make it into my kit - still only available for pre-order, and so far I haven't been too concerned about lights tipping, especially with sandbags on them (I just needed more).  Glad to see they're making an extension head for the 400 though!


----------



## adamhiram

So I finally managed to get a new gel from a lighting store in Ohio I came across, Knight Sound and Lighting - great service, competitive pricing, and free fast shipping.  Most importantly, it arrived undamaged and in new condition, which was refreshing.  This allowed me to redo a recent shoot using the same modifiers and same color gel so I could compare results between speedlights and monolights.

I used a basic 3-light setup for this portrait, with a 38" octobox for the key light, gelled reflector for background light, and a 10"x24" gridded stripbox for a hair light.  I used a large white reflector for fill, and the background is a gray hand-painted canvas backdrop.  See the pull-back shot at the end for more details.

In #1, all 3 lights were Flashpoint/Godox AD400 monolights.  I used the stock reflector on the background light, with a gel cut to fit the gel holder that came in the barn door kit
In #2, I used an AD400 for the key light, but speedlights for the background and hair lights
#3 is a shot from last year with a similar lighting setup, but all speedlights, and the hair light was likely a gridded snoot (Rogue Flash Grid), which has a similar effect to a gridded reflector
The biggest difference that I think will be a game changer is the refresh rate.  Instead of shooting at ISO 400 to avoid firing my speedlights at full power and still having to wait 3-5s between shots, I can shoot at ISO 100 with the strobes all firing as fast as I can press the shutter.  Even if I switch to continuous shooting at 3-4fps, there are no misfires.  Working with an uncooperative young subject with zero patience, this is invaluable.  This was also the reason I picked up 2 more AD400s - having one big light in a 2- or 3-light setup didn't really provide much advantage when I was still waiting for the other 2 lights to recycle.

I don't see much difference in quality of light between these shots.  My softboxes are all double diffused, and there wasn't much visible difference in the spread of the background light.  It is much easier to shoot at my camera's base ISO instead of needing to raise it to get enough power or faster recycle times, but quite frankly there isn't much noticeable difference between ISO 100 and 400.

Lastly, I'm still not getting much use out of the modeling lights yet.  As mentioned previously, it certainly helped with initial setup and light placement, but working with such a young subject I prefer to use broad lighting zones, which had to be completely setup before he ever sat down.  I don't see much difference in pupil size with and without the modeling light, since I tend to use a decent amount of indirect lighting in this space, which really isn't too dark.  In fact, I actually observed a negative side effect of leaving the modeling lights on - my son has an eye condition that results in some asymmetry that is most noticeable when he squints in bright light, which is precisely what I was creating.  This mostly went away once I turned the modeling lights off.  Again, I am guessing this will change when working with adult subjects or lighting patterns that require more precise light placement, but this has been my experience so far.

Nikon D500 with 85mm f/1.8 lens
85mm, 1/250s, f/8, ISO 100 (ISO 400 in #3)

#1. Portrait using 3 AD400 monolights



20191214-DSC_6093a by adamhiram, on Flickr

#2. Portrait using AD400 for key light, TT600 speedlights for background and hair lights



20191124-DSC_5826a by adamhiram, on Flickr

#3. Similar portrait from last year using all TT600 speedlights



20190120-DSC_1387a by adamhiram, on Flickr

#4. Pull-back shot of lighting setup from #1



20191214-DSC_6117a by adamhiram, on Flickr


----------



## smoke665

@adamhiram Your son has one of those infectious smiles that makes me smile every time you post one of him.

On your lights do they offer "tracking" on the modeling lights, where they follow the power setting, or is it only full power? Mine are set to track, which cuts down the brightness tremendously, but even then, I turn off some of them when shooting. Especially those with snoots, or gridded/gelled reflectors to keep the heat down.

For the reason you mention I'm not sure that a hairlight is helping you. They require a certain level of precision focusing that is difficult to maintain on a little one, and with a light on the background I'm not sure it's even necessary. Rather then positioning to the side sometimes coming over the top of the background with a modified light (snoot, barndoors, or narrow strip box) can work, especially if you feather it. That way if you have spill it's directed down as opposed to out over the face. Metering the hair light a 1/2 stop under your key also helps.

I tend to experiment with Li'l Bit a lot because she more comfortable on set then most kids, but on others I follow the tried and true lighting setups used by school picture photographers for the last umpteen years. This year I did several friends and family using this type of setup. There's a good discussion on this with suggestions here  setup for a standard "school portrait" Key problems with most kids is as mentioned movement, and getting light into the eyes.


----------



## adamhiram

smoke665 said:


> @adamhiram Your son has one of those infectious smiles that makes me smile every time you post one of him.
> 
> On your lights do they offer "tracking" on the modeling lights, where they follow the power setting, or is it only full power? Mine are set to track, which cuts down the brightness tremendously, but even then, I turn off some of them when shooting. Especially those with snoots, or gridded/gelled reflectors to keep the heat down.
> 
> For the reason you mention I'm not sure that a hairlight is helping you. They require a certain level of precision focusing that is difficult to maintain on a little one, and with a light on the background I'm not sure it's even necessary. Rather then positioning to the side sometimes coming over the top of the background with a modified light (snoot, barndoors, or narrow strip box) can work, especially if you feather it. That way if you have spill it's directed down as opposed to out over the face. Metering the hair light a 1/2 stop under your key also helps.
> 
> I tend to experiment with Li'l Bit a lot because she more comfortable on set then most kids, but on others I follow the tried and true lighting setups used by school picture photographers for the last umpteen years. This year I did several friends and family using this type of setup. There's a good discussion on this with suggestions here  setup for a standard "school portrait" Key problems with most kids is as mentioned movement, and getting light into the eyes.



Thanks Will, I always appreciate the kind words!

These modeling lights can be set to a percentage or proportional to the flash power.  Proportional is great for visualizing lighting ratios, but is extremely bright when the light is set to 1/4 power.  For comparison, I've been leaving the modeling lights at their default setting which is 20%, or roughly equivalent to proportional at 1/128 power.

My go-to setup is similar to the first response in that school photo thread, which is a variation on loop lighting with a white reflector for fill.  I haven't had much luck with an overhead hair light, but that may have been due to using the wrong modifier at the time, which was either too specular or had too much spill.  My son's preschool typically does flat cross-lighting with 2 equal powered lights which I'm not a fan of, both because of the lack of any shadows, as well as the alien-looking dual catchlights.  They also shoot exclusively on a green screen, which has a plethora of issues, but very noticeable is the lack of background separation when they composite in a darker background.

So that raises a recurring question I've had, which is getting a little off-topic for this thread - am I doing something wrong with my separation light, am I just calling it the wrong thing (hair/rim/edge/separation), or do we just have a difference of opinion?  I can see a little bit of spill on the face in #1 but nothing I can't live with, while I think I did a better job in #2 - really depends on how he turns his head.  For #2 which used a speedlight for the hair light, I could definitely tell when it misfired, and think the highlights in the dark hair made a big difference against the darker background.  In the past, this also resulted on too much spill on the shoulders when placed too high and not far enough away, which is why I've been opting for the side placement.  Thoughts?


----------



## smoke665

adamhiram said:


> So that raises a recurring question I've had, which is getting a little off-topic for this thread - am I doing something wrong with my separation light, am I just calling it the wrong thing (hair/rim/edge/separation), or do we just have a difference of opinion? I can see a little bit of spill on the face in #1 but nothing I can't live with, while I think I did a better job in #2 - really depends on how he turns his head. For #2 which used a speedlight for the hair light, I could definitely tell when it misfired, and think the highlights in the dark hair made a big difference against the darker background. In the past, this also resulted on too much spill on the shoulders when placed too high and not far enough away, which is why I've been opting for the side placement. Thoughts?



I wouldn't say wrong, just in the case of the subject maybe not the best application. A hair light requires fairly precise aim and control of the spill, which requires a subject who can hold the pose (at least fairly close). Since you have a lighter background and a background light, I'm not sure the headache of being that precise is worth it. By simplifying your setup it also gives you time to concentrate on the pose and coaxing out the right expression, but that's just one opinion.

If you really want a kicker you might consider an oblique short combination. Basically it's an overlapping key/neutral fill configuration that works well to get light in both eyes (a problem with kids) and define the front "mask" of the face with highlight that contrasts with everything else, then when you use a fill directly over the camera it will reach into all the low crevices on the front of the face and fall off naturally front to back helping  the highlighted front of the face contrast more as you move further back on the face. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. In this one the key was a 24" beauty dish camera left, 45 degrees, above the eyes and angled down slightly. By having her turn into the key toward a 3/4 pose, it moved the nose and helped keep down a nose shadow on the cheek camera right (notice in your first shot the big shadow). It also helps with highlight hot spots on the skin. There's a 48" softbox  high on camera axis that I'm actually shooting under, that's metered about a stop under for a nice even fill of the shadows. You'll notice that there's still a shadow under the mike, but you have to pick your battles sometimes. The kicker in this case was a gridded barn door cut to slit, on a boom camera right, high, metered under the key, angled down and feathered, to catch just the edge of the hair, to keep the spill directed down and off her. Most of the spill did go down, but you can see a little just under her arm and hand. There's really only two ways to control light spill, point it in the direction you want it to go, or flag it,  Me I prefer the kicker light traveling away from, rather on to the subject. If you still get any, that's why it's important to be sure you meter it under the key so it doesn't stick out so bad.




Not an application for every use, but it works well for me on most kids. If you really prefer only the symmetrical full face shot, then butterfly lighting will probably give you the most predictable results.

Another thing to remember on the kicker is that the further from the light you get the larger the spread. I couldn't find it but I did a study comparing a snoot a various distances. Amazing how big a circle of light a snoot will put out as you get further away. If you're using a softbox, even with a grid you're throwing a large area of light, when you only need a little.


----------



## JBPhotog

I think what you have going on with the strip light is "rim" lighting. A hair light is generally above the subject and slightly behind as to not cast shadows under the nose. A strip box is  ideal for this as it spreads the illumination evenly across the shoulders too, as long as that is the goal. If however, you are only looking to light the hair, a gridded head or small soft box with a grid also does the trick. Exposure for hair lights are subjective but again generally you want to create a highlight so often they are 1/2 to 3/4 a stop more than the key.


----------



## smoke665

@JBPhotog I may be confused, but  I always thought of  rim lighting as more from the rear, such that it creates a narrow band of highlight all around the subject almost like a halo as opposed to a hairlight which is broader and more confined to one side.


----------



## JBPhotog

No confusion, rim is generally an edge light. Side lighting is hitting both the face and side of the head and hair.  A hair light is most often referred to just the hair and lighting the top of the head. If it hits the face it is not the correct application of a hair light however it can light the shoulders.


----------



## adamhiram

Thank you @JBPhotog for that explanation, and @smoke665 for the great example.  I think I succeeded in my purpose of creating additional background separation on the shadow side, but please let me know if I can be doing something better or different to achieve this.  I know there is some spill on the face in #1, not much I can do about that with a young subject, but hopefully that will improve over time, and not be the case with other subjects.

From my own notes on rim/hair/edge lighting, I found that most resources tend to use these terms somewhat interchangeably.  I’m sure some of my confusion comes from relying too much on YouTube for learning, but some just seems to be that the differences can be pretty subtle.

Chapter 8 of Light Science & Magic discusses portrait lighting, and has a section on hair lights, kickers, and rim lights.  The differences are described in terms of positioning an purpose - it shows a rim light directly behind, a hair light slightly to the side, and a kicker provides more edge lighting that wraps around the front of the subject more.
For a more contemporary example, here is Gerald Undone giving a walkthrough of his new studio setup.  He describes it as a rim light for the purpose of background separation on the shadow side.  This is the same setup I used, but with a small gridded stripbox.
https://youtu.be/w6rpBj1OMxU?t=788 (13:08)
Gavin Hoey had a nice lesson on low key rim lighting a few weeks ago that uses a similar setup.  The first half focuses on lighting the subject using just metal reflectors, while the second half is more about the highlights in bubbles being blown using strip boxes.
https://youtu.be/89ZHtI0dsnc
This article from October shows a simple headshot setup that uses a stripbox as a hair/rim light to provide background separation, although they called it a backlight.
Stretching as a Photographer with My First Mass Headshot Photo Shoot
Thanks again for all the feedback - while this thread was intended to be more about my experience switching from speedlights to monolights, I am definitely still learning, and these tips are immensely helpful in improving.


----------



## adamhiram

Some recent examples from the Godox facebook group - not sure if the posts are visible without joining the group, but the images are otherwise public.

Godox User Group
(image) (setup)
Godox User Group
(image)


----------



## JBPhotog

I dug out my 1980 copy of Kodak's "Professional Portrait Techniques" package. The reason I say "package" instead of book is it came with a Light Ratio Calculator, a sliding sleeve with numbers, four grey toned double sided cards with 1:2 to 1:5 light ratios and a 118 page book with diagrams with photo examples and plenty of supporting text. Back in 1980 I paid $12.95 for package however I am sure one can not find a complete kit now since Kodak failed.

FWIW, the sections I have attached include descriptions of the terms we have discussed in this thread and their application for your interest.


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> Some recent examples from the Godox facebook group - not sure if the posts are visible without joining the group, but the images are otherwise public.
> 
> Godox User Group
> (image) (setup)
> Godox User Group
> (image)



Yes the group is not visible but I am not on Facepage either however, the images are, thanks.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> I dug out my 1980 copy of Kodak's "Professional Portrait Techniques" package.


Much appreciated, and definitely more helpful than the field guides I inherited with my Minolta X-700 from the same time period, which focused more on working in the darkroom.

This actually helped give me a better understanding of the lighting I used in a workshop I took last year.  I used a gridded beauty dish from above and directly behind as a hair light, although my impression at the time was that it was also a rim light (kicker/backlight) on the shoulders to provide better separation.  I'm not sure I have the space to do this in my own setup, but the scans above gave a very useful description of how and why to position them.


----------



## JBPhotog

A gridded BD can do the job as a hair light, placement is a bit critical depending on distance due to the typical 22 degree grid on most BD's. Play with exposure so you see the separation you are looking for.

What were you impressions of the eye lighter?

Lots of booms in that set.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> What were you impressions of the eye lighter?


I spent a good amount of time obsessing over catchlights and was really excited to use it.  I think the white fabric looks amazing, and really highlights the lower half of the iris nicely - check the eyes in the photo above for the result.  The silver side looked to specular to me, and created a 2nd smile-shaped catchlight that I didn't care for.  For my own use, it seems a bit expensive for what it is and takes up a lot of room to store unless you want to assemble it every time.  I know Adorama had their version of it (Glow/Flashpoint) for about half the price.  Personally, I've been happy using a large 2'x4' sheet of white styrofoam to serve the same purpose - not quite as perfect of a highlight in the eye as the curved one, but it was free with the purchase of a new shower door.



JBPhotog said:


> Lots of booms in that set.


Really nice to work with everything on heavy duty boom arms with remote adjustments, but also kind of unnecessary and a bit out of my price range!



JBPhotog said:


> A gridded BD can do the job as a hair light, placement is a bit critical depending on distance


So let me ask a more direct question, as this is something I have ben struggling with for some time.  My first attempts at a hair or rim light were using a bare speedlight, which was far too specular.  Even when put into a gridded snoot, coming from such a small light source it was better but still too specular.  More recently, I started using a small gridded strip box and have been much happier with the results.

Do the results I am getting with this most recent shoot look correct/acceptable for providing some separation from the background?
Is there a better placement I can use with my existing gear to create that separation when needed?  I have various size and shape soft boxes, strips, most with grids, but do not currently own a BD.  Is there something specific you'r recommend here?


----------



## JBPhotog

I have seen the eyelighters used by some in the past and agree with you on the silver surface, it most often bounces too much light under the chin making the neck too bright in a butterfly lighting scenario. There are some pretty simple post production techniques to get the eyes to pop with out the need for such a reflector. Yes, styrofoam or foam core can easily provide enough illumination to the underside of the iris.

IMO the answers are:
1. I would bump up the power on the hair light, it needs a bit more highlight to really provide separation.
2. For people, I'd use a gridded strip box if the intention is to provide a highlight on the top of the hairline and shoulders to make them pop off the background, placed above and to the rear of the subjects head. Inverse square law can give you some ideas on how not to blow out the top of the head compared with the shoulders.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> For people, I'd use a gridded strip box if the intention is to provide a highlight on the top of the hairline and shoulders to make them pop off the background, placed above and to the rear of the subjects head.


This sounds like it would be centered above and behind the subject...  I hope this isn’t a dumb question, but how does that differ from being off to the side like the examples above?  Would that only provide hair or rim lighting on one side, or is there more spill onto the front of the subject?


----------



## JBPhotog

Think or where the light is hitting the subject. Above and behind will only skim the sides of the head and minimize the face. To the side, you can hardly help but get light on the side of the face.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> Think or where the light is hitting the subject. Above and behind will only skim the sides of the head and minimize the face. To the side, you can hardly help but get light on the side of the face.


That makes sense, but also raises the dilemma of how to put a light above and behind the subject.  It also brings this thread back on topic, so that’s some gooodness as well!

It seems like it would be easy enough to just put it on a boom arm, but I don’t think I have anything strong enough to hold a 6lb monolight and strip box.  This would mean either picking up an AD400 extension head, which isn’;t actually available yet, or a sturdier boom arm.

Alternately, I could simply put it on a regular light stand behind the backdrop, but that also means moving everything forward 2-3’, and space is already tight.  This would most likely mean moving the subject closer to the backdrop, which isn’t ideal, or shooting slightly wider, which I also don’’t want to do.  85mm is beautiful for headshots, 50mm just isn’t the same.

It sounds like it’s time to take some test shots moving the light around until I figure out what will work in my space.  Now I’m starting to understand why @smoke665 shoots in the dark to better utilize the modeling lights!

Thank you very much for this great feedback, it has been immensely helpful.


----------



## Derrel

The angle at which a side light or rim light comes in has a major bearing on how specular it looks. Light that comes in from the side is much less specular, much less hot. When the light skims off of the subject at a steep angle, it looks quite hot. When the light comes in from the sides at the 8 or 9 or 10 o clock positions it appears much less specular.

Yes, shooting in the dark and using the studio modeling lights is a time-tested way to see what the heck you will be getting. When the room light is quite bright you do not have as clear an appreciation of what your studio lights are actually doing.


----------



## JBPhotog

A sturdy boom arm is pretty much essential for proper placement of a hair light unless the subject is very close to the background which as you say is less than ideal in most conditions. Make sure you use proper grip technique such as leg placement, counter weight and spigot angle and you’ll be good.

You are welcome, on occasion the interweb can be a good resource.


----------



## smoke665

adamhiram said:


> It sounds like it’s time to take some test shots moving the light around until I figure out what will work in my space. Now I’m starting to understand why @smoke665 shoots in the dark to better utilize the modeling lights!



UREAKA! He's catching on. LOL Learning proper placement on a human subject was hard for me, even the slightest movement changed things. Then I found the "Other Woman" my DW's Styrofoam wig head. She would sit for hours if I wanted without complaint, and always posed in the exact position I wanted. I set up in a dark studio and worked first  with the modeling light of each individual light moving them around and studying where highlights and shadows fell, then turned on all the lights and did the same thing. I didn't fire a shot, instead standing such that my eyes were in the place where the camera would be. That's a key point, it only matters if a highlight or shadow is visible to the camera. Once I had a good idea how placement affected light fall, then I switched to camera to fine tune and study settings for ratios.  Now I have a feel for where things need to be so setup goes a lot faster. While you're doing this, now is a good time to study feathering, See how you can use it in your setups.

As to hair, kicker, rim, whatever, location relative to the camera view is the deciding factor. If your unintentional  light spill is falling into an area visible to the camera, as in your 1st shot on the cheek, then as I  and others have mentioned your light placement is wrong. Notice I used the word "unintentional", I did that because there is a dramatic effect setup that uses side lighting on each side which highlights the sides of the face and shoulders but somewhat casts the front mask in shadow.

@Derrel brought up an important consideration on angle vs specularity. If you're only trying to achieve that narrow band of highlight separation then IMO it doesnt matter, but as you start to move the light such that more of the hair or skin is exposed then yes it matters. I posted one a while back that the subject was solid black, using rim light only to provide a highlight around. Looked like it had been drawn with a white brush on black paper. Specularity is tool, if you use it properly. Also to be considered is the quality of this light as to hard or soft. Do you want a sharp transition on your separation or a more gradual one?

Lastly think about how you use your tools, is it easier to use a chainsaw to cut a tiny twig or pruning shears? The same applies to lighting setups on your son. Look for combinations that provide zones as compared to those that require precision placement at least for now. Just my opinion, but I'd much rather have an image that looks like I placed all my lights correctly  with a great expression, then to have something glaring out of place, that takes away from a great expression. As your subjects mature, add to your setups, pick your tools wisely for the application.


----------



## JBPhotog

FWIW, here's a recent example I did with a client. The diagram doesn't show accurate positioning of the lights since the software won't let me turn them downward. But the key is above and in front angled toward the subject, the fill is on a floor stand base essentially the head is at floor level and the hair light is overhead to the rear and angled down towards the subject. Notice how the hair light illuminates the top of the head but doesn't catch the sides of the face, it also provides illumination to the shoulders and legs of the subject.

All lights are @40 degree fabric gridded.


----------



## Derrel

Lighting diagrams are always suspect. There is no substitute for actually setting up lights and seeing what the results are. This is no knock on JBphotographer, but it's just a comment that I have observed over the years. Lighting diagrams are just a rough guide, and there is no software that really can translate real world Studio conditions into an easy-to-use computer application output file.


----------



## smoke665

@JBPhotog nice one. Your setup is a good example of what i was suggesting earlier though you can have the issue of unintentional spill on the face if the subject moves. Still it will be less on the face with the light direction down as opposed to coming in from the side. 

Not mentioned is controlling light bouncing around the room. I'm assuming those are black flags on the sides. I recently constructed some 4x8 panels that are black on one side white on the other that hang from the floor joists in my garage from hooks and eye bolts. Little differences add up.


----------



## JBPhotog

Derrel said:


> Lighting diagrams are always suspect. There is no substitute for actually setting up lights and seeing what the results are. This is no knock on JBphotographer, but it's just a comment that I have observed over the years. Lighting diagrams are just a rough guide, and there is no software that really can translate real world Studio conditions into an easy-to-use computer application output file.



Agreed the software has its limits as a diagram and of course one can only surmise rough direction from such a crude diagram. The point was to show placement of the hair light.


----------



## JBPhotog

smoke665 said:


> @JBPhotog nice one. Your setup is a good example of what i was suggesting earlier though you can have the issue of unintentional spill on the face if the subject moves. Still it will be less on the face with the light direction down as opposed to coming in from the side.
> 
> Not mentioned is controlling light bouncing around the room. I'm assuming those are black flags on the sides. I recently constructed some 4x8 panels that are black on one side white on the other that hang from the floor joists in my garage from hooks and eye bolts. Little differences add up.



Thanks @smoke665. You are correct, the black panels are actually 4x8x2” styrofoam insulation panels painted black on one side to prevent bounce from spilling into the set, the flip side is perfect as a white bounce panel. I have made V-flats out of two separate panels and joined them with a flexible vinyl material as the hinge, again black one one side.


----------



## smoke665

@JBPhotog I couldnt find the 2" foam locally, and laminated thinner sheets was expensive. Went instead with modified torsion box construction with .115 masonite for skin. Smooth side is neutral gray, that I can use for any color background I want and backside is black. 4 of them bolt together in different configurations from a wall 16' long to "V" to corner and wall arrangements. They weigh less then 30 lbs, assemble/disassemble easy, and hang for storage against the wall.


----------



## adamhiram

adamhiram said:


> It sounds like it’s time to take some test shots moving the light around until I figure out what will work in my space.


Wow, what a difference a foot or two makes!  The test shots below were taken with a similar setup to the one used previously, but with a black seamless backdrop to better isolate the hair light.  I intentionally overexposed the hair light by about 1-1.5 stops to emphasize its effects.  The goal here was primarily to separate the subject from the background.

The first shot was taken using the same hair light placement used in my original shots earlier in this thread.  It's pretty easy to see that the light is spilling onto the face and causing some noticeable highlights.
The 2nd shot has the hair light moved just to the edge of the backdrop and slightly in front of it, just out of frame.  I think this is the result I was looking for, and seems to work best in the space I have available.  The spill on the face is fixed, and as an added bonus the spill on the background is reduced without having to flag it by moving it forward slightly.
The 3rd shot used an overhead hair light on a boom arm.  I'm not sure I got this one quite right, but it also seems like I just don't have the space for this setup.  With lower 7.5' ceilings I just couldn't get the hair light out of the frame and had to clone it out.  I also pushed this lightweight boom arm to its limits even with minimal extension, as it is really intended for holding speed lights and is not rated to hold more than 5lbs.
Any thoughts or feedback on these shots - am I getting closer, anything I could improve on?




20191219-DSC_6196-compositea by adamhiram, on Flickr


----------



## smoke665

The 2nd is definitely an improvement over the original. Low ceilings are a limiting factor, I struggle at times with 10'. If you still have everything set up try moving your key around. Closer to camera axis, closer to subject, experiment. Do the same with your reflector. Use your modeling lights and watch closely the shadows how they open up and darken, how the highlights change. Go up and down on your key and watch the eye sockets.


----------



## JBPhotog

smoke665 said:


> @JBPhotog I couldnt find the 2" foam locally, and laminated thinner sheets was expensive. Went instead with modified torsion box construction with .115 masonite for skin. Smooth side is neutral gray, that I can use for any color background I want and backside is black. 4 of them bolt together in different configurations from a wall 16' long to "V" to corner and wall arrangements. They weigh less then 30 lbs, assemble/disassemble easy, and hang for storage against the wall.



I think finding thick styrofoam 4x8's sheets could be regional depending on the weather fluctuations of the local environment. However, it is another story getting them home from the DIY store in one piece, think of a mattress tied to the roof, LOL.


----------



## JBPhotog

@adamhiram; Your three shot against black is a good example of seeing where the highlights are falling in relation to light placement, good for you for doing this test.

How far from the subject position is the hair light? It is hard to tell just how far back your hair light is but to me it looks as if it is very close to your background position. From my experience it can be a few feet behind the subject and even in normal height ceilings it won't be in the shot unless you wants tonnes of headroom in the photo.

For me, I prefer shot #3 placement as #2 is bleeding onto the neck of the subject. However, in #3 I think you are getting lens flare so moving it closer to the subject and rotating down will help mitigate this due to the use of the fabric grid on the strip. If that doesn't solve it, make sure you are using a lens hood sans filters and if it persists use a flag. Two options for flagging are just behind the subject so the strip light doesn't hit the lens but this can sometimes be in the shot with low ceilings. The other option is between the subject and camera, so it can be raised high enough to not be in the shot and also be effective.

Also, if your modifiers have flaps at the speeding position, make sure they are closed off so any bounce spill from internal light reflection doesn't escape out the back and contaminate the set.


----------



## adamhiram

smoke665 said:


> The 2nd is definitely an improvement over the original. Low ceilings are a limiting factor, I struggle at times with 10'. If you still have everything set up try moving your key around. Closer to camera axis, closer to subject, experiment. Do the same with your reflector. Use your modeling lights and watch closely the shadows how they open up and darken, how the highlights change. Go up and down on your key and watch the eye sockets.


Unfortunately I can't leave anything setup, which is why most of my gear is very compact and portable.  I played around with the other lights as well, but my focus was really on seeing what I could do with the hair light.

I'm starting to find the modeling lights more useful, but with a number of limitations I'm sure you're familiar with.  They are a lot more useful at night, since this space has a large wall of windows that make it more difficult to see where the modeling light falls.  The kiddo needs to sit patiently while I get the lights dialed in, which is pretty unlikely.  Then he needs to actually sit still long enough to get a shot without turning his head, moving out of frame, or moving parts of the set or other gear.  I typically mark the floor with bits of masking tape where everything goes to make it easier to reset and continue shooting.  It sounds like I'm on the right track at least.  I will likely give it another try this weekend if I can get some cooperation.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> How far from the subject position is the hair light? It is hard to tell just how far back your hair light is but to me it looks as if it is very close to your background position. From my experience it can be a few feet behind the subject and even in normal height ceilings it won't be in the shot unless you wants tonnes of headroom in the photo.


For these test shots, the subject is about 6' from the backdrop, and is positioned to be roughly the same hight as an average size adult (me) sitting on a 24" stool, with the top of the head around 60" from the ground.  With the monolights being so long (about 9.5" back from the mount), this doesn't leave much room over the subject's head for a modifier.  If you look at the pullback shot for the 3rd photo (same perspective, but with an UWA lens), you can see just how tight it is, and that's not even a big modifier, just a 10x24 strip box.  I could certainly flag the hair light for that setup to prevent flare, but it would definitely still be in the frame for anything but a very tight composition.  Of course this is not the case with a 4 year old, which may allow for more options with a better boom arm.


----------



## JBPhotog

I may not have been clear in my question so here is a diagram for clarity.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> I may not have been clear in my question so here is a diagram for clarity.


Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood.  Who says lighting diagrams aren't helpful!  The subject is about 6' from the backdrop, and with the boom stand up against the backdrop it protrudes about 2.5'.  So that means the hair light in the overhead configuration was about 3.5' behind the subject.


----------



## JBPhotog

Okay great, I think you can move it closer and keep it up against the ceiling. It will require a downward rotation to keep it pointed at the subject which will reduce the chances of flaring so you may not need a flag, test for sure.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> test for sure.


Thank you, I thought that's where you were going with that.  I have a feeling it will be just barely out of frame at best, but may be workable.  I still don't feel comfortable putting a heavy monolight on  this lightweight boom arm, but I'll give it a try with my "test subject" when I have a chance to setup again.

I keep seeing other people's setups and wonder if they're doing something wrong, or if I'm just missing something.  Here was another post from the Godox group today, in which the photographer was setting up to do a corporate headshot gig for an office.  Unless the strip box is feathered far enough back to just catch the back of the subject's hair, wouldn't this just create a bright highlight on the edge of the face?
(image)


----------



## JBPhotog

It looks to be feathered back and won't act like a hair light, more of a side light. In fact if you have a zoomed in look at the cameras LCD, you can see the highlight on the camera left edge of face, ear and hair.


----------



## smoke665

@adamhiram I thought of something you mentioned earlier about concern about keeping light off your background. Like everything else it's more a matter of managing your light. I did a write up on using the Dean Collins Chromozones method. Adjusting Background LIght Study I still haven't got around to completely profiling all my lights and gels but I consult the chart frequently.

When you place your hair light consider also that you're using a fairly large modifier. I did another study on the effect distance has. An Excersice On the Effect Of Distance that you might find interesting. Next time you set up to test, put a snoot w/grid on one light and leave your current hair light modifier on one. Now set them about 3' away from a wall turn them on and compare the size of the area of light thrown by each. Now double the distance and compare again.


----------



## Derrel

The closer a light is positioned to a subject, the more rapidly it falls off in intensity, as per the inverse Square law. If your hair light is only 42 in from a subject, then even small adjustments in the distance will have a profound impact. When you say what a difference a foot or two makes you are not kidding.


----------



## adamhiram

adamhiram said:


> At least my issues with Amazon have just been insufficient packaging; Adorama is just sending me broken stuff now. For anyone counting, my 2019 holiday shopping total is now up to 14 damaged, defective, or incorrect items.


Unnecessary off-topic follow-up...

It looks like all of my issues with Adorama have been straightened out after 4 calls over a period of about 2.5 weeks.  The lighting gel that came used/damaged was a pretty simple return, but the replacement was indefinitely back-ordered.  First the requested refund never came, then it was a store credit instead of a refund, then the refund posted to my credit card but was missing the shipping cost before they finally corrected that as well.  The sandbags were a bizarre issue - apparently everything at Adorama has both a SKU and a Mfg part number, and the SKU for one item matched the Mfg part number for another, and they've been sending the wrong product out.  They told me to keep the incorrect items and eventually sent out the correct ones.  Last was a basic light stand that showed up broken.  Again the return was very simple, but the replacement order had a status of "processing" for almost 2 weeks.  It finally arrived after another follow-up call, but still came with a stretched/broken wire clip that I'll probably never use so I didn't bother doing another return.

Amazon finally stopped sending me fragile items shipped in plastic bags, issued gift card credits for damaged items that did not require replacements, and told me to keep the one item that needed a replacement.  This was great until Christmas when I received an automated email reminding me to ship that item back or else I will be charged for it - after I already gave it to my kid (it was a toy that came in damaged packaging).  One more call to Amazon (call #3) and they rectified it.

Overall things seemed to work out, and I actually came out ahead if I don't include my time spent.


----------



## adamhiram

adamhiram said:


> Does anyone know if there is a way to tell what power the flash fired at when used in TTL mode?  I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell it hides flash power when switched to TTL, which would be a pretty useful thing to be able to see.


So there is a way to do this after all.  Take a shot with the flash in TTL mode, then long-press the TCM (TTL Convert Manual) button on the XPro remote and it switches to manual mode at the approximate power the flash just fired at.  I'm not sure how useful this is in practice and it didn't seem all that accurate when I took a 2nd test shot, but it gets it in the right ballpark at least.


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> adamhiram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if there is a way to tell what power the flash fired at when used in TTL mode?  I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell it hides flash power when switched to TTL, which would be a pretty useful thing to be able to see.
> 
> 
> 
> So there is a way to do this after all.  Take a shot with the flash in TTL mode, then long-press the TCM (TTL Convert Manual) button on the XPro remote and it switches to manual mode at the approximate power the flash just fired at.  I'm not sure how useful this is in practice and it didn't seem all that accurate when I took a 2nd test shot, but it gets it in the right ballpark at least.
Click to expand...


Yes that does get you close and under normal camera sync speeds it will convert a TTL exposure to a manual output setting on the flash, I use mine that way quite often. The caveat is, if the TTL sees too much black or white it will skew the flash exposure. As far as I know, there is no way of turning TTL High Speed Sync into a Manual setting at higher than normal sync speeds.


----------



## JBPhotog

Just a heads up, no pun intended, the Flashpoint AD400 head extension is now available for order, https://www.adorama.com/fplfxp400p....MI4o-e__To5gIVxZ6zCh2O8wRKEAQYAiABEgKgsfD_BwE


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> the Flashpoint AD400 head extension is now available for order


One step ahead of you, just ordered one yesterday.  Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## adamhiram

My AD400 extension head came today, and it works as expected, with a few significant caveats.

Pros:

It's small and lightweight
It has an 8' cable that connects firmly into the AD400 unit
Flash and modeling light both work as expected

Cons:

Loses about .2-.3 stop of light (metered)
Does not include bag to hang base unit from, as provided with original AD600 extension head at half the price
Does not include super clamp to attach base un it (not expected, but shown in product photos)
*DOES NOT INCLUDE THE BOWENS MOUNT ADAPTER!*  It comes with just the proprietary AD400 mount, which of course doesn't fit any of my modifiers.  Apparently I need to either unscrew the one attached to the AD400, which requires tools and is not a quick swap, or purchase a second one separately.

It seems well-built and does what it is supposed to do, but quite disappointed that it was not ready to use out of the box, and now I need to purchase additional accessories for it to be usable.  For a super clamp with stud and a new Bowens mount adapter, unfortunately I'm looking at another $40-50 out of pocket.


----------



## Derrel

There are quite a few missing features which I would be quite unhappy about. This does not sound like what I would consider to be a well-designed and well-executed customer experience! I would be quite unhappy with your short list of cons.


----------



## Derrel

Reading the Adorama ad copy....I would be pi**ed...they say it loses "ZERO" light....in all-caps and they are not very clear on the need to buy a Bowens mount...

BORDERNLINE DECEPTION.


----------



## smoke665

Derrel said:


> This does not sound like what I would consider to be a well-designed and well-executed customer experience!



No disrespect intended toward any other brand of lighting equipment, but this is just one of the many reasons I'll likely be a Paul C. Buff customer forever. The equipment is quality built, reasonably priced and designed for everyday use. They don't sell new equipment through dealers (that I'm aware of). When you call their office,  a real life knowledgeable person answers the phone, who can handle whatever you need without transferring you a dozen times, while you wait on hold. Need to know something ask them, they have experience with the construction, features, and real life experience with the use of everything they sell. Have a problem with equipment, they go out of their way to help you resolve it, whether it's something you bought from them or bought used. Can't say enough good about this company.


----------



## adamhiram

Derrel said:


> Reading the Adorama ad copy....I would be pi**ed...they say it loses "ZERO" light....in all-caps and they are not very clear on the need to buy a Bowens mount...
> 
> BORDERNLINE DECEPTION.


Agreed, and it sounds like Adorama did as well when I called them.  They're sending out a Bowens adapter for no additional cost, and it sounds like they'll likely be updating the description to exclude the reference to having a Bowens mount.  It would be nicer if they just included it, but at least they made it right.


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> My AD400 extension head came today, and it works as expected, with a few significant caveats.
> 
> Pros:
> 
> It's small and lightweight
> It has an 8' cable that connects firmly into the AD400 unit
> Flash and modeling light both work as expected
> 
> Cons:
> 
> Loses about .2-.3 stop of light (metered)
> Does not include bag to hang base unit from, as provided with original AD600 extension head at half the price
> Does not include super clamp to attach base un it (not expected, but shown in product photos)
> *DOES NOT INCLUDE THE BOWENS MOUNT ADAPTER!*  It comes with just the proprietary AD400 mount, which of course doesn't fit any of my modifiers.  Apparently I need to either unscrew the one attached to the AD400, which requires tools and is not a quick swap, or purchase a second one separately.
> 
> It seems well-built and does what it is supposed to do, but quite disappointed that it was not ready to use out of the box, and now I need to purchase additional accessories for it to be usable.  For a super clamp with stud and a new Bowens mount adapter, unfortunately I'm looking at another $40-50 out of pocket.



I will address your cons list.

• Yeah wondered about the loss of light due to the cable extension length, some people surmised the head would house a capacitor or circuitry to bump up the power loss. Looks like that didn't happen. I wonder if Godox will address this since the specifications are inaccurate.
• FWIW, my DP600DRP extension head for my AD600Pro TTL came in a cardboard box, no bag to hang the power supply.
• Again, no Super Clamp and stud to mount the power supply, I own more than 10 of these so no big deal.
• Yeah that should have been listed in the details. I also am perplexed why Godox changed the mount for the AD400. One would think consistency of the Bowens mount across the line would be logical. I heard rumours Bowens was getting back in business and they may have asked for a cease and desist order on their patented mount from third part vendors, no confirmation of that though. Happy to hear Adorama has helped you out though.


----------



## Derrel

Well, at least they gave you some decent customer service. I have been buying photogear since 1977, sight unseen, at first through mail order, and most recently off the internet or off of Craigslist. How you write a description is important. I read Adorama's sales copy a couple of times and thought that it was poorly written. There is a clear difference between being ambiguous and clearly spelling out what is and what is not included. If a photo shows something, then it is in most cases quite reasonable to conclude that what you are seeing is what you will get when you buy it. The need to buy an extra Bowens mount is ridiculous. If you need to buy extra parts, then that should be clearly spelled out. Like I said ambiguous versus crystal clear.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> I heard rumours Bowens was getting back in business and they may have asked for a cease and desist order on their patented mount from third part vendors,


Ironically, I read that Bowens is back and is actually manufactured by Godox.


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> JBPhotog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard rumours Bowens was getting back in business and they may have asked for a cease and desist order on their patented mount from third part vendors,
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, I read that Bowens is back and is actually manufactured by Godox.
Click to expand...


Ha, now isn't that amusing.

BTW, have Adorama changed their website? I noticed this on their site after I read your post.

*What's in the box:*

Flashpoint XPLOR400 Pro 8 foot extension head
Instructions
Flashpoint 1-Year USA Warranty


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> BTW, have Adorama changed their website?


It looks Adorama updated their website this evening, although it still looks a bit misleading to me.  Would it have really been that hard to just include the Bowens adapter?

Here's the original listing that specifically says it has a Bowens mount





Here's the revised listing where they removed that text from the item description.  However you may notice that one of the images absolutely shows the Bowens adapter installed




They also updated the overview to include verbiage that Bowens mount modifiers can be used with the XPLOR 400 Pro Bowens adapter, although they still don't mention that it isn't included.




And lastly, I think a lot of people will be in for the same surprise when they order the same item from B&H




Seriously, how hard is it to just include the standard mount or at least get the item description right...

On another note, I picked up a Manfrotto super clamp to hold the monolight while using the extension head.


----------



## Derrel

This is still unacceptable.


----------



## adamhiram

My winning streak continues.  Following a recommendation from @JBPhotog I picked up a Matthews Back Light Stand from B&H (I haven't had the best luck with Adorama lately), and it seems very solid and well-built, not to mention very compact and portable.  However the center column isn't vertical.  I don't mean it's slightly askew, I mean it is significantly off.  A call to Matthews confirmed that this is not normal, and it looks like the item is either damaged or defective.  Yet another RMA to deal with.

Notice that the floor is level.



20200114-DSC_6625a by adamhiram, on Flickr

The socket for the center post is not.



20200114-DSC_6624a by adamhiram, on Flickr

Which means the post is not vertical.



20200114-DSC_6623a by adamhiram, on Flickr

Not even close.



20200114-DSC_6622a by adamhiram, on Flickr


----------



## JBPhotog

Seriously man, buy a Lotto ticket. With your luck, something's gotta give.LOL

Can you check the level of each leg bend where the threaded centre post goes through? You deserve a good one so I support you getting an RMA if its easy and relatively painless. Otherwise I'd measure the height of each leg at the centre, unbolt the centre post and crack open my vice with soft jaws and bend them myself to tweak it good.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> Seriously man, buy a Lotto ticket. With your luck, something's gotta give.LOL


I have often wondered if other people really don't have these issues, or if they just don't notice (or just deal with it).  A very significant percentage of items ordered from Adorama and B&H in recent years have arrived damaged or defective.  Just off the top of my head, there are the gel, sandbags, light stand, and back light stand in this thread, damaged shims in a Sirui travel tripod I bought last year from B&H, and a Flashpoint nano clamp from Adorama in 2018 that completely fell apart during the first use (easily rebuilt and improved with some thread lock).  A number of years ago when I purchased my Manfrotto 055 XProB tripod, I recall buying it 3 times to get one with the foam grips glued on straight.  I had a Westcott 5-in-1 reflector come with the black dye from the border material smudged all over the white reflector.  I even got a gray card that wasn't even close to neutral gray.

Should the bottoms of all 3 feet align with each other when the Matthews stand is folded up?


----------



## smoke665

@adamhiram I used to think it would be nice if you lived closer so we could collaborate, now I'm not so sure. Having some distance between you and your luck might be a good thing!!


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> Should the bottoms of all 3 feet align with each other when the Matthews stand is folded up?



Yes, they should stack under each other when you fold them up.


----------



## adamhiram

smoke665 said:


> @adamhiram I used to think it would be nice if you lived closer so we could collaborate, now I'm not so sure. Having some distance between you and your luck might be a good thing!!


I have thought the same thing about collaborating if we were closer, not so much about the 2nd part!  I honestly think it's just a combination of cost cutting to compete on price, as well as being more particular about my gear than most.  To be honest most of the damaged/defective items I mentioned were perfectly usable, just not in perfect condition out of the box.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> Can you check the level of each leg bend where the threaded centre post goes through?





JBPhotog said:


> Yes, they should stack under each other when you fold them up.


The top ends of each section (on the left side) appear parallel to each other, but it kind of seems like the 3 feet should be in a straight line for the stand to be level when it unfolds.  To get the center post vertical, the long leg needs 1/2" shim and the middle leg needs 3/4" shim.  I almost wonder if they just put the wrong feet on.  Regardless, the replacement should be here in 1-2 days.




20200114-DSC_6627a by adamhiram, on Flickr


----------



## adamhiram

Following up on open issues from prior posts.

Matthews Back Light Stand
I received a replacement unit today and it has the same issue with the center post not being perfectly vertical.  I have a feeling this is neither damaged nor defective, but is more of a design flaw.  Unlike typical light stands with 3 equal legs keeping the stand vertical, this design has a single bolt going through the base.  It would seem that any play whatsoever in any of the parts it goes through would result in the socket being off-level, and therefor the center post not being perfectly vertical.  As one of the reviews on B&H said, it's still a decent product, but I expected better from Matthews.  I'm curious if the Manfrotto version has this same issue, since it has basically the same design.  Impact also makes one that appears to be a Manfrotto clone, but for about half the price.

Extension head for Xplor400/AD400
I received the Bowens adapter for the extension head and it is built well and works as advertised.  However as mentioned previously, I find it bizarre that I would need this and absurd that it is not included, and misleading that this is not mentioned anywhere.  Other commenters have suggested that perhaps you're supposed to use the one supplied with the Xplor 400, but who's going to bring an allen wrench to remove and replace 8 screws to move the adapter whenever they want to put it on a boom?  Just be warned if you pick one of these up that you'll need the Bowens adapter (or whatever mount you use), as well as a super clamp or other method of attaching the Xplor400 to the base of the stand, which is also not included.


----------



## adamhiram

adamhiram said:


> Matthews Back Light Stand


Additional update - contacted Matthews again, who said this is not normal and is providing a factory-direct warranty replacement.  Hopefully third time's the charm, although 2 RMAs in 3 days for a light stand is pretty crazy.


----------



## Derrel

It seem unfathomable to sell a light head that comes with _zero_ way to attatch it to a light stand. Ridiculous.


----------



## Braineack

Derrel said:


> It seem unfathomable to sell a light head that comes with _zero_ way to attatch it to a light stand. Ridiculous.



the light head attaches, but they did not provide the sling to hang the battery/unit pack on a stand from.  And even that really only works on a boom.


----------



## adamhiram

Derrel said:


> It seem unfathomable to sell a light head that comes with _zero_ way to attatch it to a light stand. Ridiculous.


The extension head has a standard light stand mount, it just doesn't include any way to mount the heavy monolight.  The original Xplor 600 extension head included a bag you could hang from the stand, while the Xplor 400 Pro extension head shows the monolight mounted on a super clamp in the product listing, it just doesn't include anything.  At twice the price of the older one that included everything, you'd think it would be usable out of the box without spending another $50, or at least explicitly mention it in the listing.  That being said, it meets expectations and works great after picking up the necessary additional accessories.


----------



## Derrel

Not good on the seller's part... not including a bag they probably pay $1 for...oh well. Spend $50 and pay double....seems about right.

Show one thing, but sell customers less...not cool.


----------



## JBPhotog

Looking at your sample, I think Matthews need to bend it a bit more at the first bend after the centre post.

Here's my very old Manfrotto ART: 003 and Matthews post. The feet on the Manfrotto touch which makes it look a bit off but once unfolded the post is straight vertically.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> Looking at your sample, I think Matthews need to bend it a bit more at the first bend after the centre post.
> Here's my very old Manfrotto ART: 003 and Matthews post. The feet on the Manfrotto touch which makes it look a bit off but once unfolded the post is straight vertically.


Hey, isn't that the same Manfrotto stand you recommended the Matthews over in another post?   If it was a cheap item that wasn't worth shipping back I'd be happy to do some DIY repairs - I had to do that with a cheap nano clamp I bought last year.  For $70, they can get it right the first time.  If all else fails, that Manfrotto one still looks pretty good.


----------



## JBPhotog

adamhiram said:


> JBPhotog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at your sample, I think Matthews need to bend it a bit more at the first bend after the centre post.
> Here's my very old Manfrotto ART: 003 and Matthews post. The feet on the Manfrotto touch which makes it look a bit off but once unfolded the post is straight vertically.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, isn't that the same Manfrotto stand you recommended the Matthews over in another post?   If it was a cheap item that wasn't worth shipping back I'd be happy to do some DIY repairs - I had to do that with a cheap nano clamp I bought last year.  For $70, they can get it right the first time.  If all else fails, that Manfrotto one still looks pretty good.
Click to expand...


LOL. Manfrotto base, Matthews pole extension. When I bought mine Matthews didn’t offer the base, that was 30 + years ago. The Manfrotto pole extension is not great, only two sections and no where nearly as tall that’s why I suggested the Matthews. Check to be sure you can buy the Matthews pole extension by itself.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> The Manfrotto pole extension is not great, only two sections and no where nearly as tall


The Matthews base feels heavy and solid and probably doesn't differ much from the Manfrotto one.  The pole extension it came with feels pretty cheap though.  It has a maximum height of 41" despite being advertised as 52", is made of thin aluminum, has plastic clasps, and has the spigots riveted on both ends.  The bottom spigot also seem to be made of a softer metal than other ones I have, as there are visible gouges in it just from tightening the base clasp.


----------



## JBPhotog

Ugh! I am very sorry to hear this about the Matthews pole and quite surprised their quality isn’t what it used to be. As you can see from my photo, there is no plastic, it is heavy duty, the lower spigot is removable and fully extended with the lower spigot it is 51” long. If one added a few inches elevation from the base stand then it is @53” total height.

I guess I need to revise my recommendations and double check the items now available more closely.


----------



## JBPhotog

I just checked BHPhoto, this one closely matches mine, 4 sections. The one you bought has only 3 despite the description saying 4. I’d send the whole thing back and get the Manfrotto base with the Matthews Baby, linked below.
Matthews Telescopic Baby Stand Extension


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> I just checked BHPhoto, this one closely matches mine, 4 sections. The one you bought has only 3 despite the description saying 4. I’d send the whole thing back and get the Manfrotto base with the Matthews Baby, linked below.
> Matthews Telescopic Baby Stand Extension


It's interesting to see that the product reviews show that others had the same complaints about the incorrect height, flimsy quality of the extension, and a few even replaced it with the exact item you mentioned.  Sounds like my best bet is to cancel the RMA with Matthews before they ship anything, return the 2nd item to B&H, and just pickup the components you recommended.

The crazy thing is that other than the smaller footprint, the $10 Flashpoint backlight stand I am replacing feels noticeably sturdier than the Matthews one with the flimsy extension, and that one was only intended for holding speed lights.

Thank you for all your help!


----------



## JBPhotog

The linked Matthews Baby specs say 22 lb. load capacity. I wouldn’t trust plastic levers to that limit in the kit version you are now dealing with.

I apologize for recommending the Matthews kit to you,  sorry for all the hassle.


----------



## adamhiram

I spoke with someone at Matthews today and they confirmed a few things:

The extension column it comes with is not the one in the product description, which is supposed to be 4 sections with a max height of 52".  Instead to comes with a smaller 3-section column with a max height of 41".
The product description appears to describe the Matthews Telescopic Baby Stand Extension that you recommended, and they confirmed would be much sturdier.
They suspect the main issue with keeping the column vertical is the baby pin on the bottom of the column fitting too loosely into the larger receiver on the base.  Unfortunately the pin can't be replaced since it is permanently riveted on.  They may consider updating the product to fix this, and possibly even recall unsold stock from retailers.
In the meantime, I have a Manfrotto 003 backlight stand base and Matthews telescopic baby stand extension on the way for roughly the same price, so hopefully that'll do the trick.


----------



## JBPhotog

Good for you to contact Matthews directly. Seems like there are a few errors at play with this product.

I would argue your third bullet point is BS on their part. Having a second look at your photo of the base, the receiver is not vertical so the excuse that the lower pin is too loose is bogus. It just looks like a poorly designed product from the get go.

Anyway, FWIW, I have had zero issues with my two sets of Manfrotto 003  base and the Matthews Baby extension for over 30 years. Also the 003 has a threaded socket on one of the legs if you want to mount a light lower than the centre socket. Hope it all arrives in one piece.


----------



## Derrel

Newer MIC products sold at Bare Bones prices have in many cases led to overall lowering in quality in what were formerly good products as manufacturers struggle to keep up with the onslaught of low-grade made in China products.


----------



## Nwcid

adamhiram said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seem unfathomable to sell a light head that comes with _zero_ way to attatch it to a light stand. Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> The extension head has a standard light stand mount, it just doesn't include any way to mount the heavy monolight.  The original Xplor 600 extension head included a bag you could hang from the stand, while the Xplor 400 Pro extension head shows the monolight mounted on a super clamp in the product listing, it just doesn't include anything.  At twice the price of the older one that included everything, you'd think it would be usable out of the box without spending another $50, or at least explicitly mention it in the listing.  That being said, it meets expectations and works great after picking up the necessary additional accessories.
Click to expand...


I agree.  I had the same thing happen when I ordered my heads for the AD600Pro.  It is not clear in the listing you need more parts.  Luckily I noticed before I ordered.

I do like how mounting the main body low makes the stands way more stable.  I ended up using super clamps.


----------



## adamhiram

Nwcid said:


> I had the same thing happen when I ordered my heads for the AD600Pro. It is not clear in the listing you need more parts.


Not surprised, but still disappointing for something that costs double what the non-pro version did.  At least the photos on the product listings don’t imply the super clamp is included, and your Bowens mount extension head came with the actual Bowens mount!


----------



## Nwcid

adamhiram said:


> Nwcid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the same thing happen when I ordered my heads for the AD600Pro. It is not clear in the listing you need more parts.
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprised, but still disappointing for something that costs double what the non-pro version did.  At least the photos on the product listings don’t imply the super clamp is included, and your Bowens mount extension head came with the actual Bowens mount!
Click to expand...


That is very true.  I got mine on a pretty decent sale so that did not make it as painful.


----------



## adamhiram

adamhiram said:


> In the meantime, I have a Manfrotto 003 backlight stand base and Matthews telescopic baby stand extension on the way for roughly the same price, so hopefully that'll do the trick.


We have a winner (for real this time).

The Manfrotto base is heavy and solid, and the Matthews telescoping baby extension feels solid and fits snugly and securely into the receiver in the base (and is perfectly vertical when fully assembled).  It also feels a lot more solid overall than the Matthews setup, even if it wasn't for the other issues affecting it.  It holds a 5lb monolight securely, even with the weight off-center, and of course is even more solid with a sandbag on the base.

Some interesting observations to include:

The legs on the Manfrotto base are 3/4" wide, while the Matthews legs are wider at 1 1/8".  While this means the Matthews base is a bit heavier, they both have the same footprint diameter and feel solid, with no noticeable difference in stability.
The Matthews telescoping baby extension feels a lot stronger than the one included in the Matthews base, which was thin aluminum with the base pin riveted in, and felt like it might snap off with any significant movement.  I have no doubt the new one can hold 22lbs, although I really only need 5-7.
The Matthews telescoping baby extension feels pretty solid, but is definitely different than the one @JBPhotog has.  It is made from pretty solid feeling aluminum with metal clamps for each section, but the knobs are still plastic.  It feels plenty strong though so no real concerns - I just figured I would share that it is in fact different.
I will also mention that the Matthews telescoping baby extension did not fit very snugly in the Matthews base, so even after replacing the center column, the base is still not really usable.
Overall I am pretty happy with it so far, but have only set it up to take some test shots at this point.  I definitely look forward to spending less time discussing gear and more time shooting!  Thanks again, @JBPhotog for all of your help with this.


----------



## JBPhotog

Whoo hoo! Finally a working solution, I am very pleased it has all worked out.

I guess Matthews dropped the metal knobs for plastic. I'm sure they will be fine, all my Manfrotto ART. 004 stands have plastic knobs and three of them were bought in 1981 the other seven @1985 and still going strong.

Looking forward to your tests.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> Whoo hoo! Finally a working solution, I am very pleased it has all worked out.


One more thing I will add - I definitely would not be comfortable putting an Xplor400 on this thing anywhere near full extension, but I also can't imagine ever needing to.  At 30" it is very stable, and once I hit 40" I can just as easily use a regular light stand.


----------



## JBPhotog

I'd have no problems putting my AD600Pro's on them. Unless you are using a huge modifier on it, the load capacity should handle it, of course sand bagging it is highly recommended due to the smaller foot print. However, if you need the higher limits and are not limited to a smaller foot print, then I agree a regular stand would be more stable. FWIW, my Manfrotto ART.004 minimum height are 42".


----------



## adamhiram

Some test shots I took creating grid spots.  All shots taken at 50mm, f/8, 1250s, ISO 100, and are SOOC.  The light is positioned 5' from the background, which is a typical placement for the space I have to work with.

The top row is an AD400 Pro with a standard 7" Bowens mount reflector and various grids, with the exception of the first shot which uses the 4" reflector included with the strobe.  The bottom row is a TT600 speedlight with a Rogue Flash Grid with various inserts, which is what I used before switching to bigger monolights.  All shots were metered to f/8 on the first shot.  I definitely appreciate the increased maximum power and faster recycle times of the bigger light, but the speedlight solution has its benefits.

Some observations:

The 4" reflector that is included with the AD400 Pro has a wider spread than a standard Bowens mount 7" reflector.  You can see in the first 2 shots that the first one has wider coverage, while the second one is more concentrated, but brighter.
Having a modeling light makes it incredibly easy to position the grid spot, whereas a speedlight requires a lot of trial and error to get it right.
The quality of light from the AD400 Pro definitely looks nicer to me, which is the same as in previous tests.  I am guessing this is from the speed light's fresnel head that adds a little bit of texture, although this disappears pretty quickly with any textured background or larger aperture (or more distance) that results in the background being out of focus to any degree.
*The speedlight solution with Rogue Flash Grid creates a spot that is much more round and pleasing.  I don't know how noticeable this will be in a real world scenario, but I was unpleasantly surprised to see the shape of the spot coming from the 7" Bowens reflector and grids, which seems less round and more diamond like.  Does anyone have thoughts on why this would be, or if it actually matters?*



20200119-DSC_6653a by adamhiram, on Flickr


----------



## JBPhotog

Just some observations and a whack of experience with grids on 7" reflectors.
- was the AD400 level, and I mean actually placing a level on the head? if so then . . . .
- make sure your grids are inserted in the reflector to the same amount all the way around the rim of the reflector, any askew insertion will point the grid in an off centre direction, see example. Some grids don't fit well into the reflector, check that too.
- If you rotate the reflector so it locks into the head at a different location as per the three Bowens tabs, doe the issue persist?


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> Just some observations and a whack of experience with grids on 7" reflectors.
> - was the AD400 level, and I mean actually placing a level on the head? if so then . . . .
> - make sure your grids are inserted in the reflector to the same amount all the way around the rim of the reflector, any askew insertion will point the grid in an off centre direction, see example. Some grids don't fit well into the reflector, check that too.
> - If you rotate the reflector so it locks into the head at a different location as per the three Bowens tabs, doe the issue persist?


Yes, the strobe was level, although I would think any angle would just make the grid spot elongated in that direction but still be round.  The grids seem to fit well in the reflector and are inserted all the way and evenly all around.  I tried rotating the reflector to see if that made a difference and got some interesting results - if I rotate just the reflector (no grid) the light pattern was basically the same, but rotating the grid in the reflector (or rotating both together) made a significant difference.  Additional details to follow.


----------



## adamhiram

Here is a series of tests I did to attempt to determine what is causing the grid spot to not be perfectly round.

*Row 1: Bare reflector*.  This is just the bare 7" reflector positioned 18" from the background.  The light pattern is perfectly round, and doesn't change significantly when I rotate it in the mount.  This suggests that there is nothing wrong with the reflector.
*Row 2: Try a different light*.  This is the same as the first, but with a different strobe.  Again, nice round light pattern and no significant changes when rotating the reflector in the mount.  This rules out any issues with the light.
*Row 3: Insert grid*.  This is where I start to see the anomaly.  For this test I inserted the grid, then rotated the reflector with the grid in it.  The first shot is the most noticeable, with the grid's pull-tab positioned on the top and the light pattern looking a bit lemon shaped.  The other two shots aren't perfectly round, but seem a little better.
*Row 4: Rotate grid*.  This is the same as the third, but only rotating the grid and not the reflector.  This produced the same results, implicating the grid as the culprit.



20200121-DSC_6741a by adamhiram, on Flickr

Here are some shots of the reflector and grid showing how they fit together.  It seems like a pretty decent fit, although perhaps there is some slight light leakage around the perimeter, or the pull-tab is affecting things somehow?




20200121-DSC_6759a by adamhiram, on Flickr

Lastly, here is the 20° grid.  Nothing special to see here, but I thought I would include it in this post.




20200121-DSC_6769a by adamhiram, on Flickr

A few questions I still have

Are there any issues I am missing with the reflector or grid?
Does the fit look okay with the grid mounted in the reflector?  Are there any concerns with the pull-tab blocking some of the light?
*Most importantly, will the slight distortion in the shape of the grid spot make any difference in real world scenarios?*


----------



## JBPhotog

This ^^ series shows great examples. What you are seeing is the honeycomb shape of the grid. Have a look at my image below and see if you can recognize the 6 sided honeycomb shape?

For practical purposes, you will not see this issue in your final images as you can mitigate it by aligning the grid to your subject if it is noticeable.


----------



## adamhiram

JBPhotog said:


> What you are seeing is the honeycomb shape of the grid.


How about that, it never even occurred to me!  Seems easy enough to compensate for if it's ever an issue.



JBPhotog said:


> For practical purposes, you will not see this issue in your final images as you can mitigate it by aligning the grid to your subject if it is noticeable.


That's pretty much what I figured, but glad to better understand the root cause.  Thank you as always for the quick and thorough response!


----------



## JBPhotog

You are welcome.

Some reflectors work better with grids, certain brands have reflectors specifically designed for them possibly for this reason.

I don’t think it has ever been an issue in the 30+ years I have been using them.


----------



## adamhiram

After having picked up a variety of accessories and completed a few shoots, I figure it's a good time to wrap up this thread.

New and upgraded equipment:

I picked up an Xplor 400 Pro to replace my TT600 speedlights that were mounted in S-type adapters to use with various Bowens mount modifiers.  The extra power is great and I'm still learning how to get the most out of the modeling light, but the biggest benefit to me has been the fast recycle time.  It was enough of an improvement that I picked up 2 more Xplor 400 Pros to support a 3-light setup with recycle times under 1s, even at maximum power.
I also picked up an XP400 extension head for when I want to put a light on a boom arm.  A more robust stand and arm could probably handle the weight, but it's much easier to just use the lightweight extension head.  It works great, but I was a bit disappointed that it wasn't usable out of the box, and required a separate Bowens mount adapter if I didn't want to carry a tool and replace 8 screws whenever I wanted to move the adapter between the monolight and extension head.  I also picked up a Manfrotto Super Clamp to attach the monolight to the stand, since it didn't come with any way to do this.
Next I needed a more stable back light stand, and opted for a Manfrotto 003 Backlight Stand Base with a Matthews Telescoping Baby Stand Extension.  This holds the weight of a large monolight quite well, at least up to 30-40" height, and turned out to be a much better solution than the Matthews Backlight Stand I originally went with that had multiple deficiencies. This replaced a lightweight Flashpoint Backlight Stand that worked well for speedlights, but just didn't have a wide enough base to hold heavier lights without risking tipping over.
A 7" reflector and set of grids seemed like a must, and has been very useful when I want to put a grid spot on the background. I opted for Flashpoint products, not out of brand loyalty but simply because I wanted some assurance everything would fit well together (it does).  These replaced a Rogue Flash Grid which did a pretty decent job on a speedlight.
I needed to pickup some larger gel sheets and opted for the Lee Filters Master Location Pack for a decent variety of color correction and creative gels.  I went with Lee Filters, as I was already familiar with many of their colors from the Rogue Gels I used with my speedlights.  I also picked up a small roll of gaffer tape to mount the gels and other misc uses.
I'm not sure how useful the BD-08 Barn Door Kit will be, but the barn doors are good for controlling spill when used as a background light with the stock 4" reflector.  The grid it comes with has a pretty wide spread and doesn't seem like something I'll have much use for, but the gel holder is nice if I need a colored background light with no grid.  Instead of a larger 7" reflector and full gel sheet, I can cut a 4" circle from the gel, mount in in the holder, and throw it in the Xplor 400 Pro carrying case.
Lastly, I picked up some Godox Speed Rings for Bowens Lights, which allowed me to use my existing Glow/Godox Quick Softboxes for speedlights with the AD 400 Pros.  They're not anything special, but they provide nice soft light, fold down to fit in a case the size of a lunchbox, and cost $20.
It's been an interesting journey getting to this point, but I think I have a solid kit now that will last me for a long time.


----------



## JBPhotog

Great to hear your have a very workable kit now.

I would suggest there are a variety of clips or clamps to secure gels onto the rim of a reflector rather than using gaffer tape, with the caveat of the Godox reflector that comes with the head as it does not have a rim. C-47, A clamps or even 1" binder clips will do the job and they useful inside of a softbox to do the same.


----------

