# Firing order of strobes...



## Stradawhovious (Mar 18, 2016)

I sincerely doubt there is an issue with this logic, which is why I already placed my order for new gear...


I ordered the Yn560 trigger and a few of the mark III speed-lights for creative control.  I figure I my key and fills would be set with a flash meter, but with on the fly digital and wireless control of my speed-lights my separation and supplemental lighting would allow for far more creativity. 

What would be the problem with firing the key and fill strobes as slaves to a separation or background spot rather than the other way 'round?  I sincerely doubt there would be a timing issue, and as long as there is a line of sight to the burst of light, I should be fine... right?  I've always just fired my supplemental lighting with my main as a matter of course.  There was something inherently sensible about that... but it seems unnecessary the more thought I give it.  A flash is a flash is a flash, and if they all fire in the duration allotted for the shutter, it shouldn't matter which order they fire...

Right?

I ordered the Yn560 trigger and a few of the mark III speed-lights for creative control.  I figure I my key and fills would be set with a flash meter, but with on the fly digital and wireless control of my speed-lights my separation and accent lighting would allow for far more creativity. 

Silly question I know, but after my 3rd pot of coffee today I need someone to do my thinking for me.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 18, 2016)

Unless you're exceeding 1/900,000,000 of a second shutter speed (which is likely above your sync speed anyway), it won't be an issue.  When I'm using optical triggering I use whichever light is in the best position to be seen by the others as the main trigger light.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 18, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Unless you're exceeding 1/900,000,000 of a second shutter speed (which is likely above your sync speed anyway), it won't be an issue.  When I'm using optical triggering I use whichever light is in the best position to be seen by the others as the main trigger light.



HA!

I wasn't worried about the light delay... I figured that was some mechanical/electrical delay that could, might, possibly be taken into account... but the moment I posted this thread I thought better of it and now feel silly.  

Of COURSE it doesn't matter which order they fire in.  Wow.  Friday is really getting to me this week.

I need more coffee.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 18, 2016)

I calculated this thusly: begin with the USA's total trade deficit in USA dollar amount that has been converted to Canadian dollar units x Pi, multiply that by 10, divide that by the monthly cable bill, multiply that times 12 x 12 (144), then add in the number of strobe units, and then multiply that times 25 million...that's the distance in millimeters that the light will travel in 1 whole second, so if *The Light* gets up on time, skips breakfast, leaves the house on-time, annnnd gets to the park-n-ride on-time and not an hour late, annnnnnnd catches the early train, and the early train is 100% ON TIME, then *The Light* will make it to  all the different triggers in plenty of time for full shutter synchronization.

So...yeah, should be no worries.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 18, 2016)

Derrel said:


> I calculated this thusly: begin with the USA's total trade deficit in USA dollar amount that has been converted to Canadian dollar units x Pi, multiply that by 10, divide that by the monthly cable bill, multiply that times 12 x 12 (144), then add in the number of strobe units, and then multiply that times 25 million...that's the distance in millimeters that the light will travel in 1 whole second, so if *The Light* gets up on time, skips breakfast, leaves the house on-time, annnnd gets to the park-n-ride on-time and not an hour late, annnnnnnd catches the early train, and the early train is 100% ON TIME, then *The Light* will make it to  all the different triggers in plenty of time for full shutter synchronization.
> 
> So...yeah, should be no worries.




I deserved that.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 18, 2016)

Some of the arcane photographic formulas are tricky. Always glad to help out another Nikon shooter.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 18, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Some of the arcane photographic formulas are tricky. Always glad to help out another Nikon shooter.



Can you explain to my why I don't have to worry about the cubits to rods conversion in your explanation?  Seems to me that would be necessary.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 18, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the arcane photographic formulas are tricky. Always glad to help out another Nikon shooter.
> ...


 It's negated since Derrel's used metric furlongs instead of chains to express the third inverted variable.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 18, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:
			
		

> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Pretty simple really...the rod is well-known to be 16.5 feet, but the cubit has had multiple, different lengths over time, and in different cultures, so the reliability of the cubits to rods conversion numbers would seriously compromise the calculation's reliability. See the above chart I just made, showing different cubit lengths. We just cannot base calculations on such sketchy values. It's just bad science.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 18, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...




I should have seen that.  Now I feel even sillier.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 18, 2016)

Well..."No duh!"


----------



## beachrat (Mar 18, 2016)

Plus you would need a minimum 113 degree lobe angle along with a 308 duration and .475 lift.
Assuming of course,that you're using a chain cucoloris.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 18, 2016)

IIRC, the firing order on my '68 Ford (390 CID) was 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8.  Hope this helps.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 18, 2016)

beachrat said:


> Plus you would need a minimum 113 degree lobe angle along with a 308 duration and .475 lift.
> Assuming of course,that you're using a chain cucoloris.



Please.  I'm not a COMPLETE imbecile.


----------



## beachrat (Mar 18, 2016)

Well,EXCUUUUSE ME Mr Camshaft expert.
If you know all that then you should easily have understood Derrel without asking all those other silly questions.
I suppose you knew the firing order of a 390 too,huh?!?!?


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 18, 2016)

beachrat said:


> Well,EXCUUUUSE ME Mr Camshaft expert.
> If you know all that then you should easily have understood Derrel without asking all those other silly questions.
> I suppose you knew the firing order of a 390 too,huh?!?!?



But of course.  My knowledge of camshafts and such won an international knowledge competition, and I only had four hours to prepare it.


----------



## beachrat (Mar 18, 2016)

And yet,you gave up butter for mayo.
I don't understand.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 18, 2016)

snowbear said:


> IIRC, the firing order on my '68 Ford (390 CID) was 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8.  Hope this helps.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 18, 2016)

beachrat said:


> And yet,you gave up butter for mayo.
> I don't understand.



For the sake of your soul, I hope someday you DO understand.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 18, 2016)

Wow--what a small world! When I was a kid, I worked summers at a farm, and they had a 1969 Ford Ranch Wagon with a 390 CID V-8, and it was used to pull irrigation pipe trailers out on the highway, in between different parcels of land! Towing a pipe wagon on the highway using a tractor was too slow, too dangerous, but the 390 CID V-8 engine in the Ranch Wagon could pull a trailer full of 3-inch, 40-foot long irrigation pipes 45 or so miles per hour, so...adequately safe. Wondering if the 1968 390's firing order would have been the same as in the 1969 incarnation of the 390 CID?


----------



## snowbear (Mar 18, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Wow--what a small world! When I was a kid, I worked summers at a farm, and they had a 1969 Ford Ranch Wagon with a 390 CID V-8, and it was used to pull irrigation pipe trailers out on the highway, in between different parcels of land! Towing a pipe wagon on the highway using a tractor was too slow, too dangerous, but the 390 CID V-8 engine in the Ranch Wagon could pull a trailer full of 3-inch, 40-foot long irrigation pipes 45 or so miles per hour, so...adequately safe. Wondering if the 1968 390's firing order would have been the same as in the 1969 incarnation of the 390 CID?


Probably.

Mine was a '68 Galaxy 500.  I had to put cinder blocks in the truck to get any kind of traction in snow.


----------



## beachrat (Mar 18, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Wow--what a small world! When I was a kid, I worked summers at a farm, and they had a 1969 Ford Ranch Wagon with a 390 CID V-8, and it was used to pull irrigation pipe trailers out on the highway, in between different parcels of land! Towing a pipe wagon on the highway using a tractor was too slow, too dangerous, but the 390 CID V-8 engine in the Ranch Wagon could pull a trailer full of 3-inch, 40-foot long irrigation pipes 45 or so miles per hour, so...adequately safe. Wondering if the 1968 390's firing order would have been the same as in the 1969 incarnation of the 390 CID?


The 390 FE was a badass. And yes,it was the same motor in '68 and '69. In fact,I think it remained unchanged until the mid 70's from around '61 or so.


----------



## beachrat (Mar 18, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> beachrat said:
> 
> 
> > And yet,you gave up butter for mayo.
> ...


OK. Full disclosure.
Around 10 years ago I was in a friends bar and his cousin was in the back "cooking"(grilling sandwiches at 3:30 AM).
He made up a bunch of what I guess could be called Ruebens without the kraut. On fresh marble onion rye.
They were fantastic.
And it was only because he used mayo instead of butter. That was the only difference from any other nights sandwiches.
The corned beef and pastrami were the same fresh as usual. Boars Head swiss,and he even added a little smoked turkey.
Mayo instead of butter. I couldn't believe it.


----------

