# Why do we say "strobe" ?



## WayneF (Apr 16, 2014)

Just being argumentative for fun, but why do some say "strobe" when they obviously mean "flash" ?   Flash is not a dirty word, however Adobe Flash certainly has corrupted useful searches.     We can add "-Adobe" to our search words.

Strobe definitely relates to stroboscopic -  like dance halls and police cars and other rapid repeating flashing. Photo flashes don't do that.   Some speedlights can, in a limited way - but some of us say "strobe" meaning "studio flash".  Why would we do that? 

All the lighting manufacturers say they make flashes. They never say strobe.   Retailers might say monolight and avoid both words, but for sure, they don't say strobe.  Why do we say strobe when we can only mean flash?

I am ruling Ebay practices out of consideration. These are just sellers, not manufacturers, not representative of the technology, and often English is difficult for them.  One seller there frequently says "strobe flash", trying to hit all key words probably.  They never say only strobe, unless they really mean strobe. Why do we, when we never mean strobe?


----------



## KmH (Apr 16, 2014)

Flash units are strobe lights. Strobe light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strobe means the flash of light has a duration sufficiently short to stop motion.



> Stroboscopic effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The stroboscopic effect is a visual phenomenon caused by aliasing that occurs when continuous motion is represented by a series of short or instantaneous samples.


----------



## WayneF (Apr 16, 2014)

KmH said:


> Flash units are strobe lights. Strobe light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Strobe means the flash of light has a duration sufficiently short to stop motion.
> 
> ...




No!  That is exactly my point.  Your reference explicitedly says "a series of samples" and speaks of its aliasing.  Which is NOT what photographic flashes do, and studio flash are not even built to do that.


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 17, 2014)

WayneF said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Flash units are strobe lights. Strobe light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Flash burn! Lol.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 17, 2014)

WayneF said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Flash units are strobe lights. Strobe light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Basically, yes, it is confusing.

SOLUTIONs :
1 - create your own company and buy out every company that makes flashes or strobes or lights and standardize the naming convention
2 - try to create a world wide web based standard naming convention for manufactures, publishers, standard folk to follow.  And either hope that they would, or sue them in court.
3 - just learn more about the technology and how to use it and not worry about what people call it.


I personally use "strobe" as a studio type flash .. highly debately what a studio type flash is though as manufacturers make different items with different capabilities for different customers .. who may or may not use different terminology.

:thumbup:


----------



## Designer (Apr 17, 2014)

WayneF said:


> All the lighting manufacturers say they make flashes. They never say strobe.



Years ago, flash used magnesium bulbs that were designed to burn very fast.  They would actually "burn out" in less than one second.  Before that, photographers used magnesium powder in an open tray.  Those would burn completely in about one second.  

These days, flash has been "updated" to an electronic discharge in a xenon (?) flash tube.  The pulse causes a light discharge that occurs fairly quickly.  Far less than one second.  This has become known as "stroboscopic" flash.  All current flashes use this technology because it is economical, fast, and fairly repeatable.  

Current makers of "flash" have dropped the term "strobe" due mainly to the nearly universal understanding that all modern flashes are "strobe" so the designation is considered superfluous.  

Just go with it.


----------



## Overread (Apr 17, 2014)

Flash = typically assumed to be a speedlite flash or onboard camera flash. 

Strobe = typically assumed to be a studio flash unit - ergo the bigger, heavier and oft powered only by the mains (or huge batteries/generators). 

That is the general convention - whilst it might not be grounded in fact or might be referencing old technologies or methods its a good generalist way to differentiate the two in casual photographer conversation.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2014)

I think it actually goes back to the very popular, early Honeywell* "Strobonar*" electronic flash units invented in the 1950's.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Strobonar

I used to have a 1960 Montgomery Ward's Photography Catalog, a surprisingly thick, deep catalog with hundred and hundreds of items; even as late at 1960, the generic term for an electronic flash was "wink light", to differentiate it from flash that was one-time-use or BULB-based flash.

One of the earliest, successful wink light makers was Honeywell, with its line of *Strobonar flash units.

Honeywell Strobonar + rights free image - Google Search

As is VERY common, the FIRST BRAND NAME *to create or to dominate a market often finds its trade name becoming a "generic" term.Companies must vigorously defend against this, but it is often impossible....for example "Scotch Tape" has become a generic term for clear, single-sided cellophane adhesive tape. And the "Thermos" brand was the first "*vaccuum jug*", but I have never one, single time heard a fishing buddy say, "We need to stop by 7-11 before we launch the boat so I can fill my *vaccuum jug* with coffee." Not.One.Single.Time.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> And the "Thermos" brand was the first "*vaccuum jug*", but I have never one, single time heard a fishing buddy say, "We need to stop by 7-11 before we launch the boat so I can fill my *vaccuum jug* with coffee." Not.One.Single.Time.



That got me laughing so much that I had to grab my 3rd party manufactured disposable sanitized facial tissues, aka "Kleenex", to wipe my eyes


----------



## WayneF (Apr 17, 2014)

Overread said:


> Flash = typically assumed to be a speedlite flash or onboard camera flash.
> 
> Strobe = typically assumed to be a studio flash unit - ergo the bigger, heavier and oft powered only by the mains (or huge batteries/generators).
> 
> That is the general convention




General convention?  Perhaps in your mind, but  I think it can be debated.   Since the manufacturers don't realize that, and certainly it is not a correct usage - flashes are not stroboscopic.  If any are, *certainly it is the full opposite*, some speedlights do have a strobe function.

   See for example:   strobe manufacturer - Google Search

Notice how the very few regular flash units inappropriately included there stand out like, let's say, as a great oddity?  (wanted to say like the t**d in the punchbowl, but certainly out of place).


----------



## Designer (Apr 17, 2014)

Perhaps you should take it up with the Honeywell people.  Not the people who are there now, but the ones who retired 50 years ago.


----------



## hirejn (Apr 17, 2014)

How many fashion photographers have you seen doing sessions with concert strobes that blink rapidly? Not only would it annoy everyone in the studio, but the shoot would be senseless because you wouldn't be able to time the exposure to the burst of the light. You'd just have to keep rapid firing and hope that some exposures matched the burst of the rapidly blinking light. That would be utterly ridiculous. Those strobes always blink rapidly and are not triggered by a camera shutter, and they're not what professional photographers refer to as strobes! When most people think of strobe, they do in fact think of concert lights that blink rapidly, and that is one type and meaning of strobe, but in photography "strobe" is something different. You may see rapidly blinking lights at concerts and in music videos, but you won't walk into any fashion and portrait studios and find any rapidly blinking lights.

According to Bob Davis, and noted fashion photographer Stephen Eastwood who seemed to agree, in photography a strobe is specifically a studio light for photographic stills, implying that it's designed to be triggered by and synced with a camera shutter, plugged in and contains a cooling fan, power supply, continuous and separate modeling light and is designed to accommodate light modifiers. It may or may not be capable of more than one burst of light per exposure. It's not a flash, and it's not something that blinks rapidly. Davis says a flash is distinguished as a small, portable, battery operated unintelligent light, usually shoe mounted, capable only of producing one short burst of light per exposure. That also implies that a flash doesn't have a separate continuous modeling light. Further, flashes and strobes are distinguished from Speedlights, which are usually shoe mounted, small, portable battery operated lights distinguished by intelligent functions, are capable of more than one burst of light per exposure, and also don't have separate continuous modeling lights. All of the above are designed to sync with a camera shutter, as opposed to a rock concert strobe. A Speedlight is always a Speedlight and _sometimes_ referred to as a strobe or flash. A studio light is sometimes referred to as a flash but _never_ as a Speedlight. The real confusion is what constitutes a flash or strobe. If you examine each type of light, you'll find specific distinctions and that's why Davis considers a strobe different from a flash, which is different from a Speedlight.

One thing's for sure. Professional photographers aren't referring to lights that blink rapidly like at a rock concert when they're talking about strobes. They mostly think of strobes as studio lights, triggered by and synced with a camera shutter containing separate continuous modeling lights. They think of Speedlights as Speedlights. When you think of a flash, think of an old manual Vivitar unit. When you think of a strobe, think of a studio monolight. That will help you distinguish them.


----------



## Designer (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## astroNikon (Apr 17, 2014)

hirejn said:


> .... A Speedlight is always a Speedlight and _sometimes_ referred to as a strobe or flash. A studio light is sometimes referred to as a flash but _never_ as a Speedlight. The real confusion is what constitutes a flash or strobe. If you examine each type of light, you'll find specific distinctions and that's why Davis considers a strobe different from a flash, which is different from a Speedlight.
> 
> One thing's for sure. Professional photographers aren't referring to lights that blink rapidly like at a rock concert when they're talking about strobes. They mostly think of strobes as studio lights, triggered by and synced with a camera shutter containing separate continuous modeling lights. They think of Speedlights as Speedlights. When you think of a flash, think of an old manual Vivitar unit. When you think of a strobe, think of a studio monolight. That will help you distinguish them.



FYI, My NIkon SB-800 Speedlights (& 900s) have the rapidly blinking flash strobe-like effect feature.
I call it the "annoying button" which is located on head to test the "strobe" effect, 

the video below shows how to set it up in the menu
How to Use the RPT mode on a Nikon SB-800 and SB-900 « Digital Cameras


:banghead::banghead:


----------



## WayneF (Apr 17, 2014)

I suspect the overwhelmingly major origin was Dr Edgerton at MIT in the 1930s and 40s.  He invented the repeating flash and called it strobe, and used it to dramatically "slow down" fast motion in movie capture (yes, still frame captures were possible too).

But our flash units do not do this repeating function.  They simply are not strobes.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 17, 2014)

WayneF said:


> ...  But our flash units do not do this repeating function.  They simply are not strobes.



ummm .... see my post above  :scratch:

http://www.thomaspiteraphotography.com/techniques-reviews/stroboscopic-flash-with-speedlights/


> *how do i access stroboscopic flash?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...







http://prairielightimages.com/2010/...he-repeating-flash-feature-on-the-nikon-d300/


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2014)

*strobe*

_noun_ \&#712;str&#333;b\

*Definition of STROBE*

*1*
*:* stroboscope

*2*
*:*  a device that utilizes a flashtube for high-speed illumination (as in photography)

*3*
*:* flashtube

According to an on-line dictionary, the first known use of the word "strobe" dates to 1942. The first "Strobonar" electronic flash unit for regular cameras appeared in like 1951..so..within less than a decade, the use of the word "strobe" to mean single-shot, flash*TUBE-based*, electronic flash for still camera use entered not only the lexicon, but also became the root word in a brand-new trademarked product category...the *strobe light*. Not to be *pedantically confused* with a stroboscope nearly three-quarters of a century later...

The basic definition requires a *flashtube* to be used to produce the illumination. The basic definition does NOT mean that ONLY a repeating flash be emitted...it requires a TUBE-based flash system...not one that burns up a bunch of metallic filament, but a flash system that produces a brief flash of light by means of running an electric current through a TUBE which is filled with gas...Which is exactly what Honeywell premiered in the early 1950's with the Strobonar series of electronic flash units for still photography.

The Original Post asked, "Just being argumentative for fun, but _why do some say "strobe" when they obviously mean "flash"_ ?"

Ummm, well:

Why do people say "flash" when what they really mean is 1) magneto-generated electric spark? (1850-ish)
Why do people say "flash" when what they really mean is 2) magnesium flash powder in a tray?
Why do people say "flash" when what they really mean is 3) flash bulbs? (Invented in 1928)
Why do people say "flash" when what they really mean is 4) flash cubes?

"Flash" photos have been made by basically five different methods....magneto, flash powder, flash bulbs, flashcubes, and electronic flash units of various sizes.

"Strobe" on the other hand, is created only by means of using a flashtube...so, in a way, the use of the term "Strobe" actually is more-descriptive than the vague term "flash". From 1928 to about 1975, the chances are that over 99% of all flash-lighted photographs were made by *BULB-based* flash systems. I'm only 51 years old, and I can still remember the burning feeling of flashbulbs and flashcube flash photos being taken of me and my siblings...that wonderful,lingering feel on the ole' retinas...


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 17, 2014)

Now that I've learned alot more about the _*Repeating Strobe function of my Speedlights*_ .... I've got some nifty ideas.


----------



## Designer (Apr 17, 2014)

"flash" - failing to warn your workmate that you are about to strike an arc, thereby causing him to be fully exposed to the bright light of an arc.  (a bad thing)
"flash" - momentarily opening or removing an article of clothing to expose a part of one's anatomy that is normally covered.  (also a bad thing)
"flash" - a bit of material that extrudes from between mating parts of a mold which then has to be removed.  (a bad thing)
"flash" - a moment of mental clarity when an idea takes form, or when a concept is understood.  (usually a good thing)
"flash" - an imaginary super hero who was possessed of fantastic speed.  (probably a good thing)


----------



## Designer (Apr 17, 2014)

WayneF said:


> But our flash units do not do this repeating function.  They simply are not strobes.



Mine does.  p.C-18 "Repeating flash mode" - "..creating stroboscopic multiple-exposure effects."


----------



## Designer (Apr 17, 2014)

Are we just about finished with this yet?

:banghead:


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 17, 2014)

Designer said:


> "flash" - a moment of mental clarity when an idea takes form, or when a concept is understood.  (usually a good thing)



case in point ...



astroNikon said:


> Now that I've learned alot more about the _*Repeating Strobe function of my Speedlights*_ .... I've got some nifty ideas.


----------



## WayneF (Apr 17, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> WayneF said:
> 
> 
> > ...  But our flash units do not do this repeating function.  They simply are not strobes.
> ...




Many is the wrong word... Specifically two of Nikons modern models, SB-800 and SB-900/910 (only SB-910 is in current production).    Most models do not have that, but sometimes the one top end model did.  I have two SB-800, and am aware of it, played with it a couple of times,  but that is not how anyone would shoot snapshots or portraits or whatever. It seems wrong to call flash strobe (since most cannot) and it seems wrong to call strobe flash (since most cannot).
I think we ought to call it as it is.   Also one speedlght actually with the feature certainly is no reason to specifically call studio lights (none of which have that function) to be strobes.  



Derrel said:


> According to an on-line dictionary,  the first known use of the word "strobe" dates to 1942. The first  "Strobonar" electronic flash unit for regular cameras appeared in like  1951..




Internet is like that, but obviously your source missed Edgertons many publications.  He was several years earlier, and basically, he invented use of the flash tube for photograpy (using fast capacitor discharge, but not using transistors in 1934 however).  Few of us were involved until after transistors. Edgerton was an extremely big deal, he also founded EG&G. (instrumental in WWII and later).

Strobonar was just a later exploitive name, just a brand name, it had no transistors in 1950 either, and it had no stroboscopic function.  It did advance auto light sensor controlled flash, which improved after we had thyristors to control the flash.




> Flash" photos have been made by basically five different methods....magneto, flash powder, flash bulbs, flashcubes, and electronic flash units of various sizes.



OK..  a flash makes a brief flash of light, which can "stop" motion.   Strobe is many sequential flashes of light, which instead "slows motion", only seeing aliased partial motions.  Ignition source seems not the difference.  The repetition is the difference.



> "Strobe" on the other hand, is created only by means of using a flashtube...so, in a way, the use of the term "Strobe" actually is more-descriptive than the vague term "flash". From 1928 to about 1975, the chances are that over 99% of all flash-lighted photographs were made by *BULB-based* flash systems.



Earliest fast flash photos used an electric spark gap, in air.   It has nothing to do with the repetitive nature of stroboscope flash however.

Stroboscopic is certainly not limited to flashtubes or electronic flash.  Any repeating flash can serve.  Here is Muybridge in 1887, showing that horses have all four feet off of the ground at some point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_photography

He used regular flash bulbs, many flash units spaced at distance on the track, with trip wires to trigger them.  The stroboscopic idea is Repetition of flash.

It is no reason to also call flash bulbs strobes.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 17, 2014)

many / most / some does not equate "all"  One cannot create a canned, fully binding non-wavering definition unless it includes all

so in the sake of argumentative fun

1 - write our own specific definition for it
2 - disregard other people's definition for it
3 - ignore items that don't fit into your definition
4 - keep your on specific definition no matter other information/ specifications / et all

sound good to me

go for it  :thumbup:

I'll just call my Speedlight a flash that also can do Repeating Strobe functions to capture movement per Dr Edgerton's examples.
a
SFRSFDE strobe .. err .. speedlight .. or flash ..


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 17, 2014)

WayneF said:


> ................................................................ Also one speedlght actually with the feature certainly is no reason to specifically call studio lights (none of which have that function) to be strobes.  ...............................
> Strobonar was just a later exploitive name, just a brand name, it had no transistors in 1950 either, and it had no stroboscopic function.  It did advance auto light sensor controlled flash, which improved after we had thyristors to control the flash..................................................


\
There are studio strobes that can fire off just as fast as your camera can shoot.   They tend to be too expensive for the average hobbyist or retail level photographer to own however.    Even my ABs will keeps up with the 3fps of my 5DII at the right power level.  Not exactly the same as just a continuous strobe function, but pretty much the same effect.  

  So Strobinar is a trade name that fell into common use.  If the entire point of the thread was why we use the term strobe, and that is it, why debate the semantics of the word?  Doesn't seem to matter in so much as it wasn't what influenced the evolution of the term in photographic use.   At some point it has to be accepted that the language is shaped by the people who use it.    Are you going to go into a gay bar and tell the unhappy homosexual man at the bar that he isn't actually gay?


----------



## WayneF (Apr 17, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> There are studio strobes that can fire off just as fast as your camera can shoot.   They tend to be too expensive for the average hobbyist or retail level photographer to own however.    Even my ABs will keeps up with the 3fps of my 5DII at the right power level.  Not exactly the same as just a continuous strobe function, but pretty much the same effect.



That's right... the stroboscopic effect is only due to the repetition.   Flash bulbs can do it too, which was just shown, if we can trigger them fast enough.  It would still sound really dumb in general to call flash bulbs strobes however.   And the repetition is no factor at all regarding how most photographs are taken (most:  nearly 100%).



> So Strobinar is a trade name that fell into common use.  If the entire point of the thread was why we use the term strobe, and that is it, why debate the semantics of the word?  Doesn't seem to matter in so much as it wasn't what influenced the evolution of the term in photographic use.   At some point it has to be accepted that the language is shaped by the people who use it.



Right, language usage is important, but which is normally much less factor (less options) on technical subjects which can be carefully defined. There are a few issues though, like dpi vs ppi.


----------



## Designer (Apr 17, 2014)

WayneF said:


> That's right... the stroboscopic effect is only due to the repetition.   Flash *bulbs *can do it too,



???????


WayneF said:


> There are a few issues though, like dpi vs ppi.



Oh, puleeze!  Let's not start another one!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2014)

The term "speedlight"...now, that's a fairly new word...I NEVER ONCE heard the word "speedlight" until I would say, oh, the 2000's...and I think it came about as a way to differentiate small, battery-powered electronic flash units from *studio strobes*....


----------



## WayneF (Apr 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> The term "speedlight"...now, that's a fairly new word...I NEVER ONCE heard the word "speedlight" until I would say, oh, the 2000's...and I think it came about as a way to differentiate small, battery-powered electronic flash units from *studio strobes*....




Speedlight is an older term.  It is a Nikon trademark (Canon used Speedlite, and the others are flashes).  The Nikon SB-10 about 1978, the   SB-10 manual says Speedlight on cover.  SB-11 was an early TTL speedlight, early 90s.   SB-4 was an earlier Speedlight, first with automatic control (F2 camera, 1971).    And the SB-E speedlight for FE/FM cameras. I'm thinking all SB were called speedlights.

They were not speedlights because they are small and battery powered. It was because the thyristor-type truncation design makes them be tremendously fast at low power, suitable for high speed photography, the standard solution.  Because studio flash tend to be big and slow. Studio flash are doubly unworthy for the term strobe, 1 since they cannot begin to do much of it even if somehow sequentially triggered, and 2 because they are not so triggered.      Here is one sample of the speed differences: Capability of flash units for high speed photography.   (and the Alienbees are relatively fast, as such things go).


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2014)

Huh...I had not actually heard the word "speedlight" until it became sort of "internet famous". It was not used in the photo magazines or in online discussions back in the Usenet days.

Wondering if you're going to add an IGBT monolight section to your collection of excellent articles on flash? 

Anyway...tomorrow I am doing a post, asking WHY the British pronounce the world "aluminum" AS IF IT it were spelled al-u-min-eeee-um"!!!!!!! One of my pet peeves. Well, that and of course, also their use of the plural "maths".


----------



## WayneF (Apr 17, 2014)

And the British way of corporations being plural nouns...  Microsoft have been making Windows a long time.      I suppose it could be argued either way, many people, or one company.  I imagine they think our ways are strange too. 

Speedlights were always fast, but speed photography was difficult with film.   Stopping blur of simple motion was easy, and we knew that, but for example milk drops, splash away, and hours to weeks later after developing film, learn if your timing was anywhere in the ballpark.  Then try to duplicate it again.     Actually though, you can see a little, that flash sort of freezes it in the eye for an instant, not sure what we saw, but we can get close... just never sure.  That was an advantage of stroboscopy (many sequential flashes, shotgunning).   How studio flash fits into that is a mystery to me though.     Not so much about them recycling ready, but just waiting for the flash to finish.     Low power just makes them slower (the voltage type).   But digital is so much easier than film ever was, certainly about seeing what we're doing, and then being able to post process it so easily today.

I had not thought about IGBT monolights, I didn't think there were that many.    But my idea of my stuff is it is more about the first basics, how it works, the things we really need to understand to use it.


----------

