# Doubling, tripling and quadrupling flashes...



## lennon33x (Feb 16, 2015)

So I've been contemplating the pros and cons of speedlights vs strobes. One of the biggest incentives for me to use speedlights is portability and ease of use.

I currently use YN-560 IIIs with the 560-TX transmitter. Depending on the situation, I will sometimes use my PCB Cybersyncs to trigger the flashes, but the ease of use and reliability of the 560-TX has been pretty surefire.

My biggest issue is power. In this article by David Hobby, he talks about how if you add an extra flash, you double your light. But if you add a third flash, you only add 1/2 stop. So here is my question. In terms of power, a speedlight by most brands puts out about 60 Ws of light. If I'm only going up 2.5 stops by adding three lights, am I really only getting the equivalent of 150Ws instead of 180Ws.

I'm looking to really help increase my power at a wedding, but I would like to keep the portability easy. And if I can use multiple speedlights, versus one big expensive strobe that I have to find power for, and someone could possibly break, etc. etc., I'd like to keep that idea going.

I'd like other people's input on how they do receptions, etc.

Thanks!


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 16, 2015)

the only time we really use multiple flashes at weddings are for the formal portraits. 
pre-wedding and post-wedding shots are usually with just a flash on camera either with a small softbox or bounced. 
sometimes i will carry a flash on a monopod while the wife shoots.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 16, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> the only time we really use multiple flashes at weddings are for the formal portraits.
> pre-wedding and post-wedding shots are usually with just a flash on camera either with a small softbox or bounced.
> sometimes i will carry a flash on a monopod while the wife shoots.



Do you double for power or do you shoot like a two light setup?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 16, 2015)

lennon33x said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > the only time we really use multiple flashes at weddings are for the formal portraits.
> ...



usually a two light setup is sufficient.  we typically use a modified clamshell type setup. 
we will have lightstands and speedlights set up with 43" brollys. 
I haven't needed more than 3 lights for on site portraits. 
except for the formals, its just not very convenient to set up lights, stands, modifers, etc etc for reception or pre-wedding shots. if we think we _*need*_ more than a bounced on camera speedlight,  ill follow the wife around with a flash with a small softbox on a monopod for an extra light.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 16, 2015)

One of the easiest options is simply to raise your ISO up. 

ISO 100 @ 1/1 power on the flash = ISO 200 @ 1/2 power = ISO 400 @1/4 power, etc, etc. So by leaving the flash on full power and upping the ISO you effectively get more out of it because of in the increased sensitivity of the sensor. 

Failing that, you could also make use of the inverse square law and get your light closer. Moving a strobe from 2m away to 1m away will give you a 75% increase in brightness. Obviously, this might not be ideal depending upon spread of the light and the number of people in the shot.


----------



## WayneF (Feb 16, 2015)

lennon33x said:


> My biggest issue is power. In this article by David Hobby, he talks about how if you add an extra flash, you double your light. But if you add a third flash, you only add 1/2 stop. So here is my question. In terms of power, a speedlight by most brands puts out about 60 Ws of light. If I'm only going up 2.5 stops by adding three lights, am I really only getting the equivalent of 150Ws instead of 180Ws.



60 to 75 watt seconds, but based on your assumed numbers, sure, you are getting the 3x60 = 180 watt seconds, but which is only 1.58 stops exposure increase of one.  It is not a linear function, it is NOT a half stop each. The third is slightly more than half a stop, the fourth is slightly less than another half stop, and the fifth is less yet. 

Assuming ganged equal flashes acting as one (which is not necessarily the same thing as a flash on either side of the camera)...  the Guide Number (meaning, the aperture or the distance range) increases as 2 to the power of (the number of equal flashes ganged).

You have to keep doubling the number of flashes to gain another stop...  1, 2, 4, 8, 16 flashes.
Each added flash adds less and less to the total.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 16, 2015)

Maybe you'd like a significantly more-powerful battery-operated flash unit, like this Metz 45-series model, which has a Guide Number of 148 in feet, at ISO 100, with an angle of coverage for a 35mm lens on full-frame; this is very close to the output of a Speedotron 100 Watt-second studio flash with a 65 degree reflector. This Metz is, in the vernacular, a real ass-kicker, in terms of power AND beam spread.Metz mecablitz 45 CL-4 digital Flash BASIC MZ 45140 B H Photo

A LOT of flash manufacturers have fallen into the deceptive practice of listing Guide Numbers ONLY at very narrow beam angles, such as that for say 105mm or 135mm lenses, which artificially makes a speedlight "appear" to many uninitiated people to be much closer in power to the light output that can be had from a monolight or studio flash head.

This Metz, unlike most of the cheap $50 and $60 shoe-mount flash units on the other hand, is stating clearly that it has a Guide Number of 148, at 100 ISO, in feet, and with 35mm lens coverage of the flash beam...making this a VERY powerful battery-operated flash (base mode runs off of 6 AA batteries).

If you've never used a powerful handle-mount flash unit, like a Metz 45 or 60-series, or the old Sunpak 622 Super with zoom head, or a Norman 200-B or Norman 400-B, you might be surprised at just how much more raw power these things have compared against small, $50-$60 Made in China shoe-mount flashes, or the $600 camera-maker speedlights as well.

There are other flashes too, like the Q-flash and so on which have some very high power flash pops, but which still run off of batteries of one kind or another. Of course, these other options are not inexpensive, and in terms of output-for-dollar spent, low- and mid-level studio monolights like Flashpoint or Alien Bee, etc, put out more power than very expensive handle-mount type flashes, for less money--buuut, they need some kind of battery power option or sine wave inverter option if you really MUST be "away from wall current" when the flashes are used.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 16, 2015)

I think you'll find this interesting:


----------



## WayneF (Feb 16, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Maybe you'd like a significantly more-powerful battery-operated flash unit, like this Metz 45-series model, which has a Guide Number of 148 in feet, at ISO 100, with an angle of coverage for a 35mm lens on full-frame; this is very close to the output of a Speedotron 100 Watt-second studio flash with a 65 degree reflector. This Metz is, in the vernacular, a real ass-kicker, in terms of power AND beam spread.Metz mecablitz 45 CL-4 digital Flash BASIC MZ 45140 B H Photo



This seems a concern for future support of Metz products

German TV maker Metz files for insolvency Reuters


----------



## Braineack (Feb 17, 2015)

AKUK said:


>



5min of a man bumbling for words...turned it off before any shooting.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 17, 2015)

Braineack said:


> AKUK said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Pro Tip: You can fast forward to later parts of videos by simply clicking further along the timeline.


----------



## runnah (Feb 17, 2015)

Man I want my own Staff of Ra to wield at future shooting events.


----------



## LostLensCap (Feb 17, 2015)

Buckster said:


> I think you'll find this interesting:


That was fun.  I could get into putting together a rig like that.


----------



## LostLensCap (Feb 17, 2015)

Braineack said:


> AKUK said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


you missed the best part


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2015)

LostLensCap said:
			
		

>


That was fun.  I could get into putting together a rig like that.[/QUOTE]

Well,it could be yours for a mere $4,375.60 for the eight Nikon speedlights, plus $200 for the two FourSquare, four-flash brackets, plus $100 for the monopod, and then a bit more dough for the triggers and fiber optic cables to gang the flash units together. Still, *the photos he made were pretty good, and the flash-fill REALLY improved the shots!* The pier is an amazing place, where a person can get very close to offshore, surfable waves, from a dry,stable, elevated position with a good background.


----------



## LostLensCap (Feb 17, 2015)

Derrel said:


> LostLensCap said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well,it could be yours for a mere $4,375.60 for the eight Nikon speedlights, plus $200 for the two FourSquare, four-flash brackets, plus $100 for the monopod, and then a bit more dough for the triggers and fiber optic cables to gang the flash units together. Still, *the photos he made were pretty good, and the flash-fill REALLY improved the shots!* The pier is an amazing place, where a person can get very close to offshore, surfable waves, from a dry,stable, elevated position with a good background.[/QUOTE]
Too pricey for me, but it would be fun to play around with.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 17, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Well,it could be yours for a mere $4,375.60 for the eight Nikon speedlights, plus $200 for the two FourSquare, four-flash brackets, plus $100 for the monopod, and then a bit more dough for the triggers and fiber optic cables to gang the flash units together. Still, *the photos he made were pretty good, and the flash-fill REALLY improved the shots!* The pier is an amazing place, where a person can get very close to offshore, surfable waves, from a dry,stable, elevated position with a good background.


I'd have to go with Chinese flashes and triggers, and a knockoff Foursquare from Cowboy Studio or something like that.    That would bring the cost down considerably.  

Edit: Come to think of it, I've already got 6 flashes and enough triggers to cover 10 or 12 of them, plus a bunch of clamps and arms and so on to mount them to a stand in lieu of the Foursquare...  Hmmm...  Not too many surfers right now in the cold white North of northern Michigan, what with the lakes all frozen solid at the moment, but it might be fun to experiment with it anyway....


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 17, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Well,it could be yours for a mere $4,375.60 for the eight Nikon speedlights, plus $200 for the two FourSquare, four-flash brackets, plus $100 for the monopod, and then a bit more dough for the triggers and fiber optic cables to gang the flash units together. Still, *the photos he made were pretty good, and the flash-fill REALLY improved the shots!* The pier is an amazing place, where a person can get very close to offshore, surfable waves, from a dry,stable, elevated position with a good background.
> ...



I'd just go with a profoto b1 and swap the reflector out lol and still be at half the price. Man has  time changed things up some. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2015)

Most of the four- to eight-flash speedlight videos I have seen over the last few years are basically thinly-veilied advertising plugs for camera maker speedlights at basically $550 a pop, made by the usual suspects (guys who get payed by the equipment makers). And normally, the need to use four, or six, or eight speedlights, instead of a single monolight and battery or sine wave inverter, is pretty much nonexistent, but in this case, the need to use FP Synch (or HSS in Canon-speak) was a really key factor, and in this specific shooting scenario, Black made wonderful use of the FP Synch setting the flashes offer. At one point he was using a shutter speed of 1/1600 second at f/5.6 and ISO 2,000. That high shutter speed of 1/1600 second was freezing the water and overall movement of the surfers, and the flash was creating a really nice fill and added brightness on the surfers and the water, and the flashes REALLY improved the look of the surfers, who would have basically been little more than dark outlines, as he showed near the end of the video [you know, for those who skipped the video's best part...].


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 18, 2015)

Derrel said:


> LostLensCap said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well,it could be yours for a mere $4,375.60 for the eight Nikon speedlights, plus $200 for the two FourSquare, four-flash brackets, plus $100 for the monopod, and then a bit more dough for the triggers and fiber optic cables to gang the flash units together. Still, *the photos he made were pretty good, and the flash-fill REALLY improved the shots!* The pier is an amazing place, where a person can get very close to offshore, surfable waves, from a dry,stable, elevated position with a good background.[/QUOTE]

It is a neat concept. It's like the company that puts a 350 V8 on to a motorcycle. It's huge, expensive, and unwieldy. For a lot less you can buy a purpose built machine that will go faster and handle way better. So why do it? Why not?


----------



## Braineack (Feb 18, 2015)

Derrel said:


> [you know, for those who skipped the video's best part...].



novel idea.  went back and watched the shooting part.  Really nice to see how much the light improved the shots.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 19, 2015)

more videos:


----------

