# Studio Portrait Photography



## AlexD70s (Jul 16, 2008)

I've been using my DSLR for a couple of years now shooting family, friends, etc and last year I went on cruise vacation and there were studio stations for everyone for everyone to take their formal pictures before dinner.  

Is it hard to learn studio portrait photography?

Where/How can I learn?

What equipment / brand names should i buy?

What range in price does the equipment cost (lights, umbrellas, reflectors etc)?  I don't want the cheapy stuff...i want the equipment to be durable and last for years.

What lens' are mostly used for studio portrait photography?

If I get good, maybe i'll start a home business....just an idea.

Thanks for reading,

Alex


----------



## Applefanboy (Jul 16, 2008)

The 85mm 1.8 is an excellent portrait lens.  A good starting place would be to read Strobist.com.  It talks mostly about studio lighting, but that is a very important aspect of portraits.  One more SB-800 or an alien bee would be good.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 16, 2008)

Strobist talks about using hot-shoe type flashes, off camera.  Which is certainly a possibility for something like this.

Another possibility would be 'studio' strobes...that run on AC power.  They are typically  more powerful than hot-shot flashes but you need to plug them in, where as flash units run on batteries which makes them much more portable.

One brand of studio lights that a lot of 'entry level' studio photographers are using is Alienbee.  There are, of course, other good brands and several that are more 'high end' but I use them and recommend them.

There are plenty of ways to learn about studio lighting.  There are many books on the subject, and you might be able to find a course at a community college for example.  

Some will suggest that you start with one light and learn how to use it effectively before you start adding more lights and confusing things.  When I set up a studio in a home, I like to use three or sometimes 4 lights.  You can use more or less, depending on your style and creativity.  In many cases, you can substitute a simple reflector for a light.


----------



## bigalbest (Jul 16, 2008)

Lighting equipment is not cheap and studio portraiture is an art. Last year I took a job with a local studio to learn some of this stuff and it was a great experience. I shot school dances, yearbook and elementary schools. The work is seasonal for most so finding a job like this shouldn't be too hard.
The price range for equipment like this can range from $2,000-$20,000 just for the lights and learning how to use them is not self explanatory. Not only that but while I had fun doing this work, it was also pretty repetitive and boring at times. I have also been on a couple Carnival cruises and their photographers really impressed me with their professionalism and excellent work, real pros.
Take a job like I described and see if this is really for you, maybe you'll love it.


----------



## AlexD70s (Jul 17, 2008)

Thanks everyone for the great info!  

Looks like I have a lot of research/reading/learning ahead of me before I decide what is best for me.

-Alex


----------



## MelodySoul (Jul 17, 2008)

Have you considered taking a part time job in a portrait studio? I have been working at one for almost a year now and I have learned a lot.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 18, 2008)

Pick up "Master Lighting Guide for Portrait Photographers" from Amazon, and 90% of your questions will be answered.  The last 10% come with time, good equipment and practice.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 19, 2008)

A "Strobist" setup is not ideal for actual studio work. 

For studio lights, there are two types of configurations. First, there are monolights, which are self-contained units with their own controls that plug straight into the wall. Then there are power pack systems, which use a power pack about the size of a car battery that plugs into the wall, and then individual light heads, which plug into the power pack and all settings are controlled from the pack.

Pros and Cons:

Monolights- Very simple to learn on. Lights being totally independent of each other offers some measure of safety because if a light fails, you simply replace it. On the downside, they're bulkier units themselves, often requiring very sturdy light stands or boom setups if you want to use larger modifiers because the light itself is a bit heavy. 

Pack systems- A little trickier to learn on, but offer a wider range of configurations. The lights themselves are lighter. All settings can be controlled via a central unit instead of adjusting settings on each separate head. Another big plus is that if you plan to trigger wirelessly, you'll only need one receiver on the AC pack, which will trigger all the lights simultaneously, as opposed to having a receiver on each of your monolights. One downside is that if your pack fails, all of your lights fail. Another is that you have more cords lying around, as each of the heads has to have a cord running to the pack. 

*Monolights to look into (in no particular order):*
*Affordable*: Bowens/Calumet Travelite/Gemini. Dynalite. Balcar. Hensel. Visatec. Many will recommend Alien Bees/White Lightning. I dislike them for a variety of reasons, primarily because of problems with with light temperature inconstancy across their power range, and I think other companies offer better modifiers. I also don't trust them because their company uses shady marketing terms like "effective watt-seconds," which is a completely bull**** way of pretending that they're more powerful than they are.  *
Expensive/Pro-Level*: Profoto, Broncolor.

*Pack Systems to Look into:*
Dyna-Lite. Norman. Profoto. Broncolor. Speedotron Black Line and Brown Line.

*Brands to stay away from:*
Anything made in China. Interfit. Photogenic. Smith-Victor. Sunpak. Other off-name brands.

I personally don't like Elinchrom very much because most of their units aren't fan-cooled, which I feel is an absolute necessity even if you aren't shooting rapidly. 

Here is an example of what a pack system setup might look like. This particular setup uses a VERY expensive Profoto D4 system. I selected the hardware and designed the configuration for another member's upcoming gig (she's a mentoring student of mine on here). Bear in mind this setup is rented. To buy it would costs a few thousand bucks easy. The diagram is not really to scale, but more of a ballpark configuration.







Hope that helps.


----------



## AdrianBetti (Jul 19, 2008)

http://books.google.com/books?id=dd...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPT26,M1


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 20, 2008)

Alpha said:


> A "Strobist" setup is not ideal for actual studio work.


 
Don't tell David Hobby that... he's had many incredible results with those little battery powered wonders for years... lol


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 20, 2008)

Yeah, but Alpha is right. You can use prosumer/consumer equipment and take 20 to 100 test images trying to get it right or you can get a PSU (power pack) 2 heads, a meter, and some fabrics and get in right in one or two right off the bat.

That's my experience anyway and every time I watch a video it all comes rushing back.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 20, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Don't tell David Hobby that... he's had many incredible results with those little battery powered wonders for years... lol



Honestly, I could care less about David Hobby's results and the defensive, self-righteous attitude of the "strobist" crop. Let me be clear, once again. The "strobist" setup is not ideal for studio work, for innumerable reasons, and very good ones at that. Those who portend that it is a serviceable substitute for the capabilities of a proper studio setup are the ones in the minority and for good reason. I say that as someone who routinely works with both, and I speak for countless other like-minded professionals who are better published and more accomplished than myself or Mr. Hobby.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 20, 2008)

Just watching someone work with the two is breathtaking. I mean the differences in tinkering around are dramatic. One guys sets up in 10 min. (if it isn't already set up from before), takes a test shot, adjusts once, and is ready for the shoot. Subsequent adjustments in order to get a different look are simple and easy. The other guy sets up in 15 min. (every time), takes a test, runs around twiddling and tweaking every little piece, another test, more tweaking, etc. etc. and an hour or so later he might or might not be ready for a shoot. Then OMG if more than one setup is needed or a second model is added to the set or something. The models can take lunch or something I guess while he's monkeying around. 

If all you have is a closet to work in or are limited to a table top or something and everything is in arm's reach then it's a totally different and even opposite story though. At least those have been my observations and experiences. It's also what I hear from other studio people too. But I'm not some super-pro-guy or anything. For the most part all I've shot for "work" are textures and reference shots on movie sets, etc..


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 20, 2008)

Alpha said:


> defensive, self-righteous attitude of the "strobist" crop.


 
I'd like to think of myself as a "strobist", but I was not being defensive nor self-rightous, rather I was being a little light about the topic, hence the "LOL" in the post. I did find it a little insulting on your part to call me so. The strobist concept is very popular and has grown to an amazingly large subculture internationally for some very valid reasons:

- they advocate using affordable (NOT cheap) light sources
- they advocate a lot of ingenouity and DIY
- they advocate using your head more than your wallet

As an amateur, all these concepts are very attractive to me. I am sure many a high-end pro could learn a thing or two from these edicts as well.



Alpha said:


> Let me be clear, once again. The "strobist" setup is not ideal for studio work, for innumerable reasons, and very good ones at that.


 
"Ideal" is a relative term and could change drastically with something as minor as location.  I am sure than ANY person given enough time and unlimited funds could eventually throw a beam of light on someone's face... lol

But, since you mentioned it... list them, I am sincerely willing to learn (I also want to see the number of reasons you call innumerable :lmao: ), ... because the only two real reasons I can see, are: 
A - needing to light an enormous area and/or 
B - needing to crank off so many shots in rapid succession in a day, that a battery powered strobe would need battery replacement too often. 

It certainly is not quality of light becuase a 5600K light that comes from a lowly strobe at 100WS is identical to a 5600k light from a 500WS Prophoto monollight dialed down to 100WS.



Alpha said:


> Those who portend that it is a serviceable substitute for the capabilities of a proper studio setup are the ones in the minority and for good reason.


 
I am saying it is a very serviceable approach to the vast majority of people here who would love to enter the world of portraiture, some even professionally. 

Again, list those advantages, because I am sincerely wanting to learn. Saying there are reasons but not being specific about said reasons means nothing to me as someone that wants learn about those reasons, if for nothing else other than my own education. Please, I am interested.



Alpha said:


> I say that as someone who routinely works with both, and I speak for countless other like-minded professionals who are better published and more accomplished than myself or Mr. Hobby.


 
I am willing to cede that there may be good reasons (which I hope you will some day share), to use both ends of the spectrum but each has it's place in the studio. Battery and/or AC lighting.

I also have a set of AC strobes. Albeit, not ProPhoto, but I use them in situations where I am at home and stationary. They are more powerful than the SB-800 and SB-600s that I own. However, when I need portability (studios are not just in a photographer's personal studio), those battery powered flashes give me light when the larger and heavier AC powered units cannot (locations where AC power is not easily accessible like a park, beach or outside a subject or client's location), not unless you again, invest in heavy power packs, extra long and thick cables, and have assistance to haul and set them up with you in a reasonable amount of time.

Personally, I would love to own multiple ProPhoto 2500WS lights and all the matching accessories, but I am a man with champagne tastes on a beer budget.  I suspect that the vast majority of photographers, amateur or professional, are as well.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 20, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> One guys sets up in 10 min. (if it isn't already set up from before), takes a test shot, adjusts once, and is ready for the shoot. Subsequent adjustments in order to get a different look are simple and easy. The other guy sets up in 15 min. (every time), takes a test, runs around twiddling and tweaking every little piece, another test, more tweaking, etc. etc. and an hour or so later he might or might not be ready for a shoot. Then OMG if more than one setup is needed or a second model is added to the set or something. The models can take lunch or something I guess while he's monkeying around.


 
I can see that more as being an issue with the man holding the camera more than if the lights he is using have batteries in them or are plugged into a wall.

Time to setup or time to change scenarios would obviously be to the benefit of the one not needing to watch out for wires to trip over or to make sure that the AC outlet is close enough... both photographers being of equal experience and intelligence.

I woudl not even dream of placing myself in the same catagory as a professional, but I can with a 3 strobe and 2 studio light setup transition to any of 5 of my favorite and totally different lighting scenarios now almost without thought and I will know in advance what my settings and end result will be before the first test shot is taken. That just comes from experience and practice.  If you took a weekend doing nothing but 3 setups and transitioning back and forth, you too could do it easily.  I am sure that the pros have dozens of such setups and not only that, they can compensate for variations based on needs.

Alpha as mentioned that there are other innumerable reasons. I am hoping to find out what they area.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 21, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I'd like to think of myself as a "strobist", but I was not being defensive nor self-rightous, rather I was being a little light about the topic, hence the "LOL" in the post. I did find it a little insulting on your part to call me so. The strobist concept is very popular and has grown to an amazingly large subculture internationally for some very valid reasons:
> 
> - they advocate using affordable (NOT cheap) light sources
> - they advocate a lot of ingenouity and DIY
> ...



I didn't necessarily mean you in particular. I meant the general attitude of many "stobists," which is that off-camera flashes are just as "good" as studio strobes for studio work, which they aren't. I'll get to why in a minute. But let's talk affordable. And when I say affordable, I mean in context, not absolute numbers. For starters, there's way too much hype over Speedlights. They crank out something in the neighborhood of 80 w/s, which isn't much power, even unmodified. Have you checked the price of Speedlights lately? Watt-second for watt-second I'd argue that they're actually more expensive than most studio strobes. Then factor in your choice of light-stands, modifiers, and triggering devices. They're really not all that cheap. But let's say you wanna go the very cheap route...say Vivitar 285's. Aside from their horrendous recycle times and slightly awkward controls, most digital shooters will also have to factor in voltage adapters. Once you modify you're not getting that much bang for your buck in terms of power output and you've got to buy most of the same things you'd have to for studio strobes, plus some in the way of brackets and other adapters.

As for DIY, I don't really buy it. For starters, most of the "DIY" attitude one will need is common to any arrangement of lights. I mean, let's be honest here, it's not as if you're actually building the strobe. You're just finnicking around with mechanical arrangements, and I should add ones that the industry is constantly making more easy, streamlined, and I'd say less DIY.

I don't buy the argument that a "strobist" setup forces you to use your head more than your wallet. Using your head is about deciding on the right tools for the job. And I'd argue that you're not doing that if you've adopted the mentality that off-camera flashes can handle most any application.



> "Ideal" is a relative term and could change drastically with something as minor as location.  I am sure than ANY person given enough time and unlimited funds could eventually throw a beam of light on someone's face... lol
> 
> But, since you mentioned it... list them, I am sincerely willing to learn (I also want to see the number of reasons you call innumerable :lmao: ), ... because the only two real reasons I can see, are:
> A - needing to light an enormous area and/or
> B - needing to crank off so many shots in rapid succession in a day, that a battery powered strobe would need battery replacement too often.



Ok. Here are some reasons:
1) Loss of modifiers.
-You basically lose all ability to use reflectors
-Almost no studio modifiers are built with off-camera flash use in mind, which is why they have to be specially adapted.
-Large and double-baffled modifiers overwhelm their power capabilities and become mostly useless. 
-Complete loss of specialized modifiers, including but not limited to: adjustable reflectors, parabolic umbrellas, and fresnel spots.
2) Huge power sacrifice.
-No overpowering of the sun on location
-Inability to use large modifiers, especially gridded
-Limited use of scrims
-Inability to light large areas or full-length subjects
-More lights needed to provide the same power or light the same area
3) Loss of configuration possibilities
-More triggers required than pack setups
-Inability to control multiple lights from a central location
4) Batteries
-Inability to use a battery inverter on location
-Constant purchasing of smaller batteries
-Few or no battery pack capabilities
5) Recycling
-Slower recycle time at the same power output
-Recycle time slows as batteries lose power
-No fan cooling (meltdown or burnout risk)
6) Time
-Running around to adjust settings on each flash
-Slower setup time because of extra brackets and adapters needed.



> It certainly is not quality of light becuase a 5600K light that comes from a lowly strobe at 100WS is identical to a 5600k light from a 500WS Prophoto monollight dialed down to 100WS.



It certainly is quality of light, and not because of power but because of modifiers, which I've already addressed.



> I am saying it is a very serviceable approach to the vast majority of people here who would love to enter the world of portraiture, some even professionally.



It's a serviceable substitute if you don't mind the many limitations that I listed above. For the vast majority of applications, off-camera flashes greatly fall short of studio strobe capabilities, particularly of course, in the studio. Can you still light a subject with them? Yes. But there are many configurations that are simply not possible with them.



> I am willing to cede that there may be good reasons (which I hope you will some day share), to use both ends of the spectrum but each has it's place in the studio. Battery and/or AC lighting.
> 
> I also have a set of AC strobes. Albeit, not ProPhoto, but I use them in situations where I am at home and stationary. They are more powerful than the SB-800 and SB-600s that I own. However, when I need portability (studios are not just in a photographer's personal studio), those battery powered flashes give me light when the larger and heavier AC powered units cannot (locations where AC power is not easily accessible like a park, beach or outside a subject or client's location), not unless you again, invest in heavy power packs, extra long and thick cables, and have assistance to haul and set them up with you in a reasonable amount of time.



Location is another story. I've listed plenty of reasons that real studio strobes are preferable in the studio. But even for location work, there are better alternatives that are still lightweight and don't require you to sacrifice as much in other areas. The three that come to mind in particular are the Norman 400 series, the Q-flash, and the Lumedyne systems. Then there are the battery options from the larger companies. Yes, they're a bit heavier, but not exactly cumbersome. 



> Personally, I would love to own multiple ProPhoto 2500WS lights and all the matching accessories, but I am a man with champagne tastes on a beer budget.  I suspect that the vast majority of photographers, amateur or professional, are as well.



As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I think a lot of people are lulled into thinking that a "strobist" setup is a bargain basement alternative. In reality, it requires you to buy basically all the same equipment as you'd have to with real strobes, and joule for joule they aren't as cheap as people think.

I'll add that there's a big difference between the convenience of a portable setup and actually requiring ultimate portability, which most people don't.


----------



## DanPonjican (Jul 21, 2008)

I got this book a while back and it was GREAT.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jul 21, 2008)

I will agree that alpha and jerry have both made some very good arguments, and comparisons, but Studio strobes, and strobist, are different sets of tools, for different situation, although their uses to crossover, and I think that both jerry as Alpha seem to agree, at least somewhat on that point.

The strobist method can be cheap. Example, If you already own a canon/nikon speedlight for on camera flash, a vivitar 285 makes a fine back up. The current version is designed for digital cameras, so no safe-sync device is needed. Now those two speedlights are not a new purchase, they are something you would have anyway. The the cost of a strobist setup is like $150 in crappy stands umbrellas and some gadget infinity triggers or cables.

This is a pretty cheap way to get into off camera flash, but is certainly no replacement for a true studio. 

Some speedlight on stands can be indispensable in some non studio oriented location shoots, and studio strobes in a formal setting will allow much more flexibility in the studio.



I Have a huge rolling tool box in my garage, with every think I could ever need, it has wheels and can be taken places, but with a bit of work. I have a very small toolbox in my truck with just the essentials, its light, portable and I can do a lot with the tools inside of it, but sometimes I really wish I had my big tool chest.


----------



## Robin (Jul 21, 2008)

AlexD70s said:


> Is it hard to learn studio portrait photography?


 
It depends on the level of expectation of your clients. With many bulk photo shoots such as on cruises or school photos, the expectation is not very high. The studio is set up, people come in, pose, shoot, done, next, repeat. Not exactly what I would consider an art form but it makes money.

Many photographers do take portraits to a level of an art form but they are generally photographers who have individual customers who come to them and pay for their own session.

It's not that difficult to learn a basic and traditional lighting set up for portraits, especially if you have good equipment. It's also not that difficult to learn basic posing. But it all depends on the level you want to take it too.



> Where/How can I learn?


 
Books, the internet, workshops, etc.



> What equipment / brand names should i buy?


 
I like Alien Bees, as mentioned by someone else. They are what my photo school used to supply students with rental equipment so they are pretty durable too, they're not going to hand over equipment to hundreds of students if they don't think it won't last more than a few years. I only wish I could get Alien Bee's in the UK.



> What range in price does the equipment cost (lights, umbrellas, reflectors etc)?


 
Lights: http://www.alienbees.com/flash.html
Umbrellas and reflectors won't be expensive compared to the lights. You can check out prices on someplace like B&H.



> What lens' are mostly used for studio portrait photography?


 
Often sharp, prime lens usually between 50-100mm. You could go higher but of course only if you have the room.

Remember that portraits aren't just about equipment and lighting set ups, posing is important too. When I was a teen, at a school dance there was a photographer set up for portraits, my friend got hers back and she looked pregnant. To be fair, she had long legs and a short torso so when he had her turn her hips slightly, her hip looked like her stomach and she looked pregnant. Those are things the photographer should look out for - but typically, in these bulk photo shoots, the photographer doesn't have time to perfect the posing and therefore the level of expectation for these types of photos goes down.


----------



## AndrewG (Jul 22, 2008)

bigalbest said:


> Lighting equipment is not cheap and studio portraiture is an art. Last year I took a job with a local studio to learn some of this stuff and it was a great experience. I shot school dances, yearbook and elementary schools. The work is seasonal for most so finding a job like this shouldn't be too hard.
> The price range for equipment like this can range from $2,000-$20,000 just for the lights and learning how to use them is not self explanatory. Not only that but while I had fun doing this work, it was also pretty repetitive and boring at times. I have also been on a couple Carnival cruises and their photographers really impressed me with their professionalism and excellent work, real pros.
> Take a job like I described and see if this is really for you, maybe you'll love it.


 
I disagree about price; you can buy a couple of studio lights with snoots and barn doors for next to nothing and get great results with a little experimentation in light-positioning. Add a couple of reflectors and you're good to go. Expensive strobes are not necessary for the novice. You'll learn more about exposure and the fall of light and shade that way too.
For a good book on studio lighting techniques I recommend '50 Portrait Lighting Techniques' by John Hart, Amphoto, 1995, ISBN 0-8174-3860-2.
A book I found extremely interesting is 'Portraits' in the Pro Lighting series by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz which covers just about everything you need to know and shows that great results can be achieved with very simple equipment.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 22, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I can see that more as being an issue with the man holding the camera more than if the lights he is using have batteries in them or are plugged into a wall.
> 
> Time to setup or time to change scenarios would obviously be to the benefit of the one not needing to watch out for wires to trip over or to make sure that the AC outlet is close enough... both photographers being of equal experience and intelligence.



In my experience it's not about wires nor the man (considering he's a vet). It has to do with the size, power and control of the lights. With the battery operated ones you have to go around and punch buttons on each device and even then they are limited in terms of power so you might also have to adjust your panels each time. The light sources themselves are much smaller not getting them to hit what you want the way you want it is more fiddly just as a matter of form factor.



> I woudl not even dream of placing myself in the same catagory as a professional, but I can with a 3 strobe and 2 studio light setup transition to any of 5 of my favorite and totally different lighting scenarios...



And with proper studio equipment more often than not it's just one strobe. Sometimes more though. A nice studio grade power pack and strobe can easily illuminate from 3 to 5 directions with splitting, bouncing, using gobos, and etc.  




> now almost without thought and I will know in advance what my settings and end result will be before the first test shot is taken. That just comes from experience and practice.  If you took a weekend doing nothing but 3 setups and transitioning back and forth, you too could do it easily.  I am sure that the pros have dozens of such setups and not only that, they can compensate for variations based on needs.



Sure, of course a less dynamic routine can be practiced and learned. I agree. And if all you're doing is one kind or a few of the same kinds of shots over and over then either rigging is about the same I suppose.

Download some of Dean Collins's DVDs and have a look. I think you might cream yourself. 

http://www.software-cinema.com/prod...f-dean-collins-on-lighting/product_details/78

LOL! Most of the reviews on "The Strobist" about this set say that they can't even keep up with the guy if that tells you anything. 

Both are good and interesting ways to light - I'll not argue that. One way is just more professional, dynamic, and robust. Thus preferred for a "professional" environment.  Of course the OP did mention a "home business" as being one of the goals so you're more right in this case probably than Alpha and I are giving you credit for.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 22, 2008)

Glitz and glam is half the business. Let's be real. There are AD's who will demand 8x10 or MF digital when a lesser camera would do. Likewise there are smaller time clients who will be unimpressed with coming over to your house and being photographed with some 285's and a 20D in your garage.

It's not all about the equipment. Great shots can be had with an LX and a 285, or likewise with a G9 and a speedlight. 

Will you sing professional with a 1DS MKIII or a P1 back on a Blad and a parabolic reflector on a Profoto or a Broncolor rig? You bet your ass you will. It's one of the reasons I'm considering buying an RZ67II kit instead of a dinged up RB. Fancy equipment, and the element of style will squeeze every last drop of confidence from your clients, even if it doesn't make your shooting and final shots better (though in many cases it should). Of course it's possible to take great photos with unimpressive or unimpressive-looking equipment. But when your rates start going up, as far as clients are concerned sometimes you have to earn the right to shoot with lesser equipment.


----------



## pm63 (Jul 26, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Glitz and glam is half the business. Let's be real. There are AD's who will demand 8x10 or MF digital when a lesser camera would do. Likewise there are smaller time clients who will be unimpressed with coming over to your house and being photographed with some 285's and a 20D in your garage.
> 
> It's not all about the equipment. Great shots can be had with an LX and a 285, or likewise with a G9 and a speedlight.
> 
> Will you sing professional with a 1DS MKIII or a P1 back on a Blad and a parabolic reflector on a Profoto or a Broncolor rig? You bet your ass you will. It's one of the reasons I'm considering buying an RZ67II kit instead of a dinged up RB. Fancy equipment, and the element of style will squeeze every last drop of confidence from your clients, even if it doesn't make your shooting and final shots better (though in many cases it should). Of course it's possible to take great photos with unimpressive or unimpressive-looking equipment. But when your rates start going up, as far as clients are concerned sometimes you have to earn the right to shoot with lesser equipment.


 
I'm a strong believer in the photographer making a great image, and not equipment. If you have a strong portfolio to show to a prospective client, I believe this will make a much bigger impact than showing them you have lots of $$$ to spend on a digital MF rig. Your results and skill will speak for themselves.


----------



## usayit (Jul 26, 2008)

WOW... simple question turned into a hot thread.  I haven't read through everything yet but I'm in a similar boat.  

I'm more than able to spend a few thousand on a "studio" kit but I'm a firm believer of spending reasonably (or else you just go into bad debt like almost everyone in my country... perhaps our "must have best" attitude is what is wrong with us today.. but thats another discussion).  Sometimes, getting the absolute best just to "start" learning is a recipe for frustration.  I see no problem with picking up a small kit on a budget to learn and moving on from there.  At that point, you'll be advanced enough to know the limitations and purchase accordingly.  

For me.. i did my research.. set a low budget (after all I'm not an experienced strobist) and ended up with this kit discussed in this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131896

Perhaps, I'll advance as a studio photographer/strobist to the point that I will put up the thousands it requires to get a full high end studio.  If so, then the $230 I spent will have served its purpose as a valuable learning tool.  If NOT, then I just saved myself few thousand bucks.  It is a win-win situation.   (Often dumping your wallet is not a win-win).

Yeh people might look at me strange using such a budget kit on my Leica and 1d-MII but screw them.... I'm in for the enjoyment of learning.



btw.. I did consider AC home strobes but I didn't like the non-portability aspect.  Afterall, I haven't dedicated a sizable room to a studio yet... no beginner would.


----------



## usayit (Jul 26, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Honestly, I could care less about David Hobby's results and the defensive, self-righteous attitude of the "strobist" crop. Let me be clear, once again. The "strobist" setup is not ideal for studio work, for innumerable reasons, and very good ones at that. ....




Alpha... with all due respect...  I feel through your response that you have advanced far enough in studio photography that you lost sight with "the beginner".  Much like those brilliant research college scientists that work such great magic in a lab but can't teach nearly as well as their teacher's assistants.  

You may be absolutely correct (what do I know) but you can't deny that a basic strobist setup can be a valuable learning tool.  No one here is saying that the same kit is suited for professional use.


btw.. the author of the "strobist" blog even admits that he now uses a full set of professional strobes for his work.  His "strobist" kit was assembled when he was a broke college student and still follows him today.  Pretty much the same idea with being reasonable.


----------



## DeadEye (Jul 26, 2008)

I recently put together my first studio light setup on the cheep or well cheep for what I was after. I wanted a very short flash duration with plenty of power and fast recycle as the subject was 30 feet away so I went with a speedo black line setup.  Got it all off ebay except for the beauty dish one piece at a time. I have watched just about every piece of speedotron stuff on ebay these past 6 or 8 weeks. Best bang for the buck is the brown line stuff . I watched a brown line kit go for under 500.00 this week and it had everything a home setup could want.  Pack , stands. 4 lights , softbox. Umbrellas. Cords even carry bags. If you watch and wait there are real good deals for brown line.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 26, 2008)

usayit said:


> Alpha... with all due respect...  I feel through your response that you have advanced far enough in studio photography that you lost sight with "the beginner".  Much like those brilliant research college scientists that work such great magic in a lab but can't teach nearly as well as their teacher's assistants.
> 
> You may be absolutely correct (what do I know) but you can't deny that a basic strobist setup can be a valuable learning tool.  No one here is saying that the same kit is suited for professional use.
> 
> ...



I must say it would be rather difficult for me to lose sight of cheaper portable flashes given the fact that I use them routinely. I was simply making a case for studio strobes in the studio, and against the idea that small off-camera flashes are equally capable in the studio.

What gets my goat is when "stobists" run around the internet claiming that nobody really needs studio equipment in any setting. Even concessions that studio strobes have their place are often made with the back-handed caveat that "but you really don't need that." Well, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the time you do. And even when you don't, off-camera flashes are a much bigger hassle.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 26, 2008)

DeadEye said:


> I recently put together my first studio light setup on the cheep or well cheep for what I was after. I wanted a very short flash duration with plenty of power and fast recycle as the subject was 30 feet away so I went with a speedo black line setup.  Got it all off ebay except for the beauty dish one piece at a time. I have watched just about every piece of speedotron stuff on ebay these past 6 or 8 weeks. Best bang for the buck is the brown line stuff . I watched a brown line kit go for under 500.00 this week and it had everything a home setup could want.  Pack , stands. 4 lights , softbox. Umbrellas. Cords even carry bags. If you watch and wait there are real good deals for brown line.



I'm switching to black line myself.


----------



## usayit (Jul 26, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I must say it would be rather difficult...



No arguments from me.. but I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that small dedicated flashes were replacement for strobes in studio.   I think what put Jerry on the defensive was that "defensive and self-righteous" could easily describe your responses.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 26, 2008)

usayit said:


> No arguments from me.. but I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that small dedicated flashes were replacement for strobes in studio.   I think what put Jerry on the defensive was that "defensive and self-righteous" could easily describe your responses.



It's hard for me to agree when the phrase "studio portrait photography" pops up repeatedly in the OP and people start responding with strobist suggestions. Though I will admit that my first post was partly preemptive.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 26, 2008)

... enough that I delayed responding to do a lot more personal studies (that means I spent a weekend with someone that had $25,000.00 in ProPhoto equipment in their studio). It is VERY impressive, but 75% of what he did, I could do as well. The same goes in the other direction. He could do only about 75% of the things I that I could do. Time to setup is near almost the same, but he has 20 years experience, I have a LOT less.

IMHO, I will just restate that each has it's place in a STUDIO, my friend agrees 100% after seeing the results in real life.

Rather than beat my head into a wall further, I'll just bow out of this conversation, gents. I am very comfortable knowing in my head what I know now, and am not here to change anyone, just learn.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 26, 2008)

My honest opinion is that most of the time you can get away with off-camera flashes if you try hard enough. 

My honest opinion is that studio strobes are just so much better in so many ways for studio work.


----------



## bigalbest (Jul 27, 2008)

Alpha said:


> My honest opinion is that most of the time you can get away with off-camera flashes if you try hard enough.
> 
> My honest opinion is that studio strobes are just so much better in so many ways for studio work.



I must agree, having experience with both. The speedlghts just lack the power needed.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 27, 2008)

The Strobist/studio flash issue really boils down to a few issues in my mind:

1. The abiility to accurately see shadows and highlights. The lack of modeling lights make it impossible to see beyond the basics, unless you shoot tethered. (the display on any digital camera is just too small to accurately see what you're doing) I used Novatron for years, for portraits and the like it's more than acceptable. My studio partner uses Photogenic monolights, and for senior portraits and the type of work he does, it's fine. Even in subdued lighting in the studio, I am thankful for the 500w modeling lights, as they are bright enough to accurately see what areas need fill cards or goboing. Part of the "quality of light" talked about by people isn't just the quantity @ power level / color temperature, but also the accuracy of modeling lights and the ability to accurately preview exactly what you will get. Both Elinchrom and Broncolor were industry leaders in this aspect of lighting (Bron in the late 60's/early 70's) decades ago, this isn't a new concept or concern. 

2. Color Accuracy. I am doing strictly product work now, color accuracy is critical, and nearly every flash, from the 285 to the Photogenics and the like vary the color temp as power is adjusted. There are only a handful of pack/head systems that don't, and I found a Broncolor setup at a reasonable price. (3 1600 w/s packs and 5 heads, one a bitube for $450 from a retiring product shooter). Color accuracy is consistent regardless of power settings on the higher end flash units. While some would say it's not a big deal, for product and repro work, it's what separates the "wanna-be's" from the ones that can justify their hourly rate (and have customers glad to pay that rate).

3. Consistency of output. Portable and lower end flash units output vary, some by as much as a stop from pop to pop. The higher end units don't, the Broncolor pack/head combos I use varies less than a 1/10 of a stop (the metering limit of my flash meter) For some work, it doesn't matter, in my work, it does.

4. The above noted lack of Modifiers/insufficient power. I frequently use a 4'x6' softbox, and on occassion a 5'x12' scrim, even with 4800 w/s on tap, it's tough to get sufficient light levels to shoot at the required aperture at times. 

In addtion to the above, 2 sec. recycle times, at max  power level, ability to adjust power levels symmetrically/assymetrically from the shooting location, 



Now, don't misunderstand, I often utilize "strobist" approaches, I have 2 Metz 60CT-1s and use them for location portraiture / environmental portraits when AC power isn't available. But as noted above, it's take a quick shot, see what needs adjusting, repeat...Use of a color checker becomes mandatory, as color accuracy isn't as good as what I get in the studio. (and what my clients expect (or deserve) from me). It all boils down to what your expectations are, and what your clients (if any) expect and will pay for. 

erie


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 27, 2008)

epatsellis said:


> 1. The abiility to accurately see shadows and highlights. The lack of modeling lights make it impossible to see beyond the basics



Did you know that light travels in a straight line?  I do not need modeling lights to know where the light will fall.  All I do (if in doubt, which is REALLY rare nowadays), is stand behind the light stand and look in the direction it is aimed.  I offer you the opinion that all modeling lights are crutches for people who just got lazy and cannot or wish to not visualize what they desire.



epatsellis said:


> I am thankful for the 500w modeling lights, as they are bright enough to accurately see what areas need fill cards or goboing.


If you cannot see flare or light contamination from any light source, you are simply not paying attention.  Modeling light strength (1 watt or 500 watt modeling lights), mean nothing to help decide if you need a gobo or not.  If you are STILL in doubt, a fast shot and a 4 second look will tell you, however, thats really reaching.  I can stand where the camera will be, and know /see  if I am getting contamination or not.  



epatsellis said:


> Part of the "quality of light" talked about by people isn't just the quantity @ power level / color temperature, but also the accuracy of modeling lights


Modeling lights are NOT used in the picture.  They could be blue, green or hot pink and not make a difference.  They should be turned off once you are set anyways.  Basically, I say that they  are used by people so that they can "see" where the light is going to fall before the flash happens.  An experienced photographer needs not to do such things.  If one is really in doubt, snap off a shot and look, it takes like 4 seconds total.  

I am no professional, but I can walk into a room, look at a lighting setup and tell you pretty freaking accurately where the light is going to fall on your subject without flashes or modeling lights.  Did I mention that light travels in straight lines?  (lol)



epatsellis said:


> 2. Color Accuracy.


Using my Nikon speedlights, I've used from 1/128th to full power and my WB is *always* set to 5600k.  My skin tones don't stray, the grey card is always close, even on a speedlight thats already delivered 250 flashes from a simple set of four AA batteries.  Thats a test that I did a while back too.  If there were changes, I would be the first to say that this is so.  I cannot speak for all setups, but for my meagre one, it doesn't waver and is not an issue... unless I gel them. 



epatsellis said:


> 3. Consistency of output. Portable and lower end flash units output vary, some by as much as a stop from pop to pop.


A possible advantage of the higher end studio units. Before that happens on the speedlights, though, recycle times drop severely and I know to change batteries before that (usually by that point, I am well past 400 shots).  Batteries do not fire the strobe, they charge the capacitors.  When the cap is full, whether from an old or new battery, it fires consistently at the the same intensity... it just may take longer to charge up as the battery weakens.

However, by the time that happens, I've taken 400+ pics.  So, not only is it time to replace the batteries, its usually time to swap CF cards and likely go for lunch too (lol).  In effect, I can charge my batteries faster than I can drain them.  Also, at 1/2 power, I am looking at a maximum 2 second recycle times (~ 3-4 seconds at full power) with the AA batteries, less if I use external power packs.  At 1/8th-1/4th power I can pop off 15-20 shots at 4 FPS before it starts to become a factor to consider.  No matter what, at these levels, I cannot burn out my flash heads using ordinary AA batteries.  At 1/8th power and lower, I have no mental considerations for battery life or recycle times, its near instantaneous and more than what I will require from any given session. 

Now, I *could* easily burn out my strobes if I used an external Quantaray battery pack (guaranteed continual 1 second recycle times at anywhere from 1/2 to full power for 800 shots... thats what that battery pack can do), but thats just nuts.  I do not know anyone that needs that many cycles in that short a time.  I can also guarantee that your speedlight is toast after that as well.  



epatsellis said:


> 4. The above noted lack of Modifiers/insufficient power.


There exists no modifier that doesn't already exist for a speedlight or that cannot be easily made.  Scrims, gobos, snoots, gridspots, softboxes, umbrellas, gels... you name it, someone can or has already done it.

Lack of power?  The one HUGE advantage for the big guns!  I will ceded that there are no existing speedlights that can match the output 1 for 1 on even a mid-range 500Ws studio strobe.  However, there is nothing stopping me from putting 4 umbrellas in a shoot-through scenario (2 up, 2 down, very close and tight) and get the same final results as a single ProPhoto 500Ws setup in a $400 4 X 6 foot softbox.  Been there and done that.  Only difference, the 500Ws softbox can be 10-15 feet away, and I have to be 5-6 feet away.  Thats no biggie for most. 

I will also counter that with 500ws of lights in a 10 X 20 foot room dialed down to it's lowest power settings, you still cannot get the light strength low enough without ND filters, massive diffusion or a really high F-stop to light the scene on 2 different planes (ie: first plane being between the front strobes to the subject and 2nd plane being from the subject to a backdrop).  With the tiny strobes on the other hand, I can open my camera's lens to F/1.4, blur the heck and/or blacken out ANY ambient light out of the picture within a total physical depth of 4 feet from camera lens to backdrop and still get perfect exposure on my subject, and  I'll be working at 1/8th to 1/32nd of my maximum strobe power on the strobes.  To do the same result with a 500WS studio unit dropped to it's lowest setting of 100-125Ws, you would need 50 or more feet to reproduce a similar result or smaller apertures, massive filtering or diffusion, not to mention a really nice 200mm lens at that distance!  



epatsellis said:


> I frequently use a 4'x6' softbox, and on occassion a 5'x12' scrim, even with 4800 w/s on tap, it's tough to get sufficient light levels to shoot at the required aperture at times.


Again, the fact that speedlights are weaker?  No contest and no argument.  It is also a fact that the average person on this forum (let's expand that to 90% of ALL photographers that use flash), will never need to light a 20 X 40 foot room at F/11.  However, there will always be someone that does, and for them, that justifies their needs perfectly.



epatsellis said:


> In addtion to the above, 2 sec. recycle times, at max  power level


2 second recycle times are actually quite slow.  As mentioned, if I wanted to use 1/2 to full power, the external battery packs are good for 800 flashes with 1 second recycle times... but you can then go and toss that $300 flash into the garbage... lol.  

Leave that speedlight at 1/2 power and you can go all day at 5-6 continual flashes with a 10-15 second break in between.  Do you really need that, though?  The average person... of course not.  The pro?  Even that is likely too slow for them sometimes.



epatsellis said:


> ability to adjust power levels symmetrically/assymetrically from the shooting location,


Adjusting settings manually is no biggie honestly, but being able to do it while from behind the camera is an awesome choice to have.  On a smaller scale, I can do this using Nikon's CLS and can tell you, it IS convenient, but its not mandatory nor what I would call a deal breaker.  Also, to be able to do this in the studio is definitely going to cost you some pretty coin, as these units do not come cheap.  For $1000 to $3000 savings, I'll walk the 10 feet across to the light to change settings.  Now, if your strobe is 25 feet in the air... thats another story!  



epatsellis said:


> ...it's take a quick shot, see what needs adjusting, repeat...


That would be the same with strobes or studio flashes.  However size of the subject, room and distance makes the big advantage that a full-out studio setup offers.  You pay big bucks for that big light.  In some cases, absolutely nothing else will do, I know that.



epatsellis said:


> It all boils down to what your expectations are, and what your clients (if any) expect and will pay for.



You are 100% right on that.  They are the ones that will decide if you get paid or not.  I definitely understand that if you don't have the equipment needed to get the job done, it costs you big time. The thing is, very few people need that level that we are discussing.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 27, 2008)




----------



## epatsellis (Jul 27, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Did you know that light travels in a straight line?  I do not need modeling lights to know where the light will fall.  All I do (if in doubt, which is REALLY rare nowadays), is stand behind the light stand and look in the direction it is aimed.  I offer you the opinion that all modeling lights are crutches for people who just got lazy and cannot or wish to not visualize what they desire.
> 
> 
> If you cannot see flare or light contamination from any light source, you are simply not paying attention.  Modeling light strength (1 watt or 500 watt modeling lights), mean nothing to help decide if you need a gobo or not.  If you are STILL in doubt, a fast shot and a 4 second look will tell you, however, thats really reaching.  I can stand where the camera will be, and know /see  if I am getting contamination or not.



Visualization and artistic merit aside, when shooting for reproduction, you have a max contrast ratio of 1:5. Can you, with your calibrated eye insure me that I will get what I need? I can't (and I've been shooting in studio for 25 years, I can say it will be pretty close, but not with absolute certainty, not at 2+ hours to dress a set, you have to at least have the image of you know what you're doing in the customers eyes)



JerryPH said:


> Modeling lights are NOT used in the picture.  They could be blue, green or hot pink and not make a difference.  They should be turned off once you are set anyways.  Basically, I say that they  are used by people so that they can "see" where the light is going to fall before the flash happens.  An experienced photographer needs not to do such things.  If one is really in doubt, snap off a shot and look, it takes like 4 seconds total.
> 
> I am no professional, but I can walk into a room, look at a lighting setup and tell you pretty freaking accurately where the light is going to fall on your subject without flashes or modeling lights.  Did I mention that light travels in straight lines?  (lol)



Yup, straight line, absolutely correct. Now take a 4' softbox, light a 12" wide subject, and where will your shadow break, does it match what the art director wants in strength and softness? Can you visualize it exactly? The work that I do is about as far away technically and aesthetically from portrait work, and I don't dispute that. How often in portrait work will the client give you a mylar overlay (blue line) to match position, angle, shadow break, etc.? Or tell you that 1:5 is the a bsolute max contrast ratio the prepress house wants? I've never had one portrait client ever do that. It's pretty much standard in higher end product work. (and why for those customers I shoot with the Sinar P and a scan back) Most photographers would be amazed at what happens on a product shoot, and if you are ever in the area, get a hold of me, I shoot at least once a week right now, you may be in for a shock.




JerryPH said:


> Using my Nikon speedlights, I've used from 1/128th to full power and my WB is *always* set to 5600k.  My skin tones don't stray, the grey card is always close, even on a speedlight thats already delivered 250 flashes from a simple set of four AA batteries.  Thats a test that I did a while back too.  If there were changes, I would be the first to say that this is so.  I cannot speak for all setups, but for my meagre one, it doesn't waver and is not an issue... unless I gel them.
> 
> 
> A possible advantage of the higher end studio units. Before that happens on the speedlights, though, recycle times drop severely and I know to change batteries before that (usually by that point, I am well past 400 shots).  Batteries do not fire the strobe, they charge the capacitors.  When the cap is full, whether from an old or new battery, it fires consistently at the the same intensity... it just may take longer to charge up as the battery weakens.
> ...



Gray card being close doesn't mean it's exact, and that's my point. We're talking exact color repro, consistently. Once again, apples and cows, that's how far apart we are, in terms of color accuracy.



JerryPH said:


> There exists no modifier that doesn't already exist for a speedlight or that cannot be easily made.  Scrims, gobos, snoots, gridspots, softboxes, umbrellas, gels... you name it, someone can or has already done it.
> 
> Lack of power?  The one HUGE advantage for the big guns!  I will ceded that there are no existing speedlights that can match the output 1 for 1 on even a mid-range 500Ws studio strobe.  However, there is nothing stopping me from putting 4 umbrellas in a shoot-through scenario (2 up, 2 down, very close and tight) and get the same final results as a single ProPhoto 500Ws setup in a $400 4 X 6 foot softbox.  Been there and done that.  Only difference, the 500Ws softbox can be 10-15 feet away, and I have to be 5-6 feet away.  Thats no biggie for most.
> 
> I will also counter that with 500ws of lights in a 10 X 20 foot room dialed down to it's lowest power settings, you still cannot get the light strength low enough without ND filters, massive diffusion or a really high F-stop to light the scene on 2 different planes (ie: first plane being between the front strobes to the subject and 2nd plane being from the subject to a backdrop).  With the tiny strobes on the other hand, I can open my camera's lens to F/1.4, blur the heck and/or blacken out ANY ambient light out of the picture within a total physical depth of 4 feet from camera lens to backdrop and still get perfect exposure on my subject, and  I'll be working at 1/8th to 1/32nd of my maximum strobe power on the strobes.  To do the same result with a 500WS studio unit dropped to it's lowest setting of 100-125Ws, you would need 50 or more feet to reproduce a similar result or smaller apertures, massive filtering or diffusion, not to mention a really nice 200mm lens at that distance!



Not neccesarily, I've often used my 1600 w/s pack dialed to 200 w/s and connect 3 heads, 2 in the closet (with modeling lights off), one lighting the subject. gives me ~86 w/s, obviously the variations (and power levels) are endless.



JerryPH said:


> Again, the fact that speedlights are weaker?  No contest and no argument.  It is also a fact that the average person on this forum (let's expand that to 90% of ALL photographers that use flash), will never need to light a 20 X 40 foot room at F/11.  However, there will always be someone that does, and for them, that justifies their needs perfectly.
> 
> 
> 2 second recycle times are actually quite slow.  As mentioned, if I wanted to use 1/2 to full power, the external battery packs are good for 800 flashes with 1 second recycle times... but you can then go and toss that $300 flash into the garbage... lol.
> ...



However lighting, say a lawn tractor with a 4x6 softbox approx 3' away, fill cards and gobos, and you need to use f16 to hold DOF, typical in the work I do. 



JerryPH said:


> Adjusting settings manually is no biggie honestly, but being able to do it while from behind the camera is an awesome choice to have.  On a smaller scale, I can do this using Nikon's CLS and can tell you, it IS convenient, but its not mandatory nor what I would call a deal breaker.  Also, to be able to do this in the studio is definitely going to cost you some pretty coin, as these units do not come cheap.  For $1000 to $3000 savings, I'll walk the 10 feet across to the light to change settings.  Now, if your strobe is 25 feet in the air... thats another story!



My "standard" product work (about 85% of what I shoot) is a large softbox, 8' in the air (or higher) on a 10' long boom. At the moment, I'm in the middle of shooting approx 250 images for a major catalog by the equipment manufacturer, the budget (which we'll easily be well under at this point) extends deep into 6 figure territory. They want what they want, and if we can't do it somebody else can (they previously used a studio in Detroit, some 500 miles away, and paid about 3x our day rate, as well as travel expenses).


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 27, 2008)

epasellis, awsome convo... I enjoyed exchanging. 
I prefer apples to oranges, though... cows are a little tough.    I think that our differences come from the fact that we are really from opposite sides of the user spectrum.  One being an amateur home user, the other a professional with much different needs.

:thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Alpha (Jul 27, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Did you know that light travels in a straight line?  I do not need modeling lights to know where the light will fall.  All I do (if in doubt, which is REALLY rare nowadays), is stand behind the light stand and look in the direction it is aimed.  I offer you the opinion that all modeling lights are crutches for people who just got lazy and cannot or wish to not visualize what they desire.
> 
> 
> If you cannot see flare or light contamination from any light source, you are simply not paying attention.  Modeling light strength (1 watt or 500 watt modeling lights), mean nothing to help decide if you need a gobo or not.  If you are STILL in doubt, a fast shot and a 4 second look will tell you, however, thats really reaching.  I can stand where the camera will be, and know /see  if I am getting contamination or not.
> ...



Simply put. You're completely, totally, absolutely, indubitably wrong. 

1) Yes, it most certainly is useful to see where your light is falling so that you can adjust modifier orientation. This is nearly always the case with rectangular soft boxes, and god forbid you want to use an adjustable reflector you are completely SOL without them.
2) FOCUSING. I don't know what kind of professionals you think you're hanging out with but anyone who's routinely autofocusing in a studio is positively stupid. Available light is needed for good focusing, especially with small viewfinders or medium/large format.
3) Good modeling lights can easily tell you where you need fill.

I'm sorry Jerry. I like you a lot but this time you're talking out your ass. You just said a couple posts ago that you didn't even know the reasons that studio strobes could be better than off-camera flashes. What qualifies you to make these pronouncements? After reading the above I didn't even bother finishing the whole post.


----------



## Zansho (Jul 27, 2008)

Personally, for me, understanding how lighting and your camera works is of paramount importance before even considering what to get for studio strobes.  Once you understand the limitations of your equipment, you will understand more about what you need to purchase to address those limitations.  

I, for one, I have a variety of lighting equipment, which I value even more than some of my lenses.  I have a set of speedotron black line - fairly old, but they work quite well, fired with my pocketwizards - which I use in the studio, for a variety of things.  The biggest positive of these is the fact I can attach my modifiers - things like grid spots, softboxes, and strip boxes with relative ease, and I can adapt them to pretty much ANY lighting I want.  I can dial down power very easily, and and controlling them is pretty much effortless. 

Outdoors, and on location, I'm using my Norman 200B's.  They're powerful little suckers, and I can shoot them in a variety of ways - with a silver reflector dish, snoot, umbrellas, and with some cobbling, a softbox.  They have enough juice for about 200 full power flashes, which is plenty for me on location, and I have extra batteries if needed.  They're not exactly the same as my Speedotrons in terms of power and control, but they're a heck of a sight better than my 580 EX II, and the only thing that can compare are my Quantum QFlash.

I have to agree with Alpha though - if you asked me which lighting I wanted to use for studio work, I'd probably point at my Speedotrons.  Second in line would be my Normans, and last, my 580 EX II.  All of my lighting equipment can be triggered with the appropriate cords and my pocketwizards, so honestly, it's nice to have that flexibility.  

Lighting, to me, is probably the most valuable tool a photographer can have, aside from his lenses and camera.  With good lighting, pretty much ANY camera and lens can take a great photo - but with crappy lighting, all the super "ZOMGUBER!" gear in the world won't save your collective behind.

One thing I disagree with Alpha though - you don't NEED a "professional" looking body to take "professional" looking results.  I've shot with a Rebel XTI, and produced some fine prints out of that camera.


----------



## Zansho (Jul 27, 2008)

I'm sorry, Jerry, but he's right.  I didn't see the post you just did, otherwise I'd have refuted what you posted. 

Simply put, while the strobist approach is amazing, and it has taken some people to new levels, it is NOT a substitute for a good set of quality studio strobes.  No way, no how, modeling lights or no.



Alpha said:


> Simply put. You're completely, totally, absolutely, indubitably wrong.
> 
> 1) Yes, it most certainly is useful to see where your light is falling so that you can adjust modifier orientation. This is nearly always the case with rectangular soft boxes, and god forbid you want to use an adjustable reflector you are completely SOL without them.
> 2) FOCUSING. I don't know what kind of professionals you think you're hanging out with but anyone who's routinely autofocusing in a studio is positively stupid. Available light is needed for good focusing, especially with small viewfinders or medium/large format.
> ...


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 27, 2008)

One thing I did leave out (since we are talking strobes) is that I also use some custom built HMI lighting, with a scan back on the 4x5 sinar. The HMI's uses the same light modifier attachments as my Broncolors. The 3+ minute scan times make shoot and look very, very impractical as well for this application. If you can't see what you have before you capture, you're in for a long day or SOL.


----------



## Zansho (Jul 27, 2008)

I'll give you one thing though, Jerry - a professional and a hobbyist have two completely different needs.  Strobist style might work for you, and stay within your budget.  

However, for professionals that do this on a daily basis, strobist just simply doesn't cut it. We have to spend (with the client paying) thousands of dollars on lighting equipment in order to achieve what is expected of us from our clients.  We're counted on, to produce consistent quality, day in and day out.  I'd rather rely on my Speedotrons for that.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 27, 2008)

Zansho, 
If you ever make it to Central IL from Austin, you're welcome to spend some time with the Broncolors, even with the older packs and heads, the difference isn't subtle. I keep my Novatrons for farting around at home, where consistency isn't critical (ebay photos, etc.) but sold the Speedo Blackline stuff shortly after getting the Broncolor. The Speedo is good, really good, but there's a reason why Bron is the Bentley of lighting equipment.


----------



## Zansho (Jul 27, 2008)

I've heard a lot of good things about Broncolor, but the price puts me off .  I've spent over 2k for my Speedotron set (2400 pack, 3 heads) used, and I still had to buy my modifiers.  

I'm pretty happy with my speedotron right now, and they're pretty darn good in terms of their lighting output and color consistency.  To be honest, I've been eyeballing some Profoto lights, but I'll wait a bit before I buy my next set.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 27, 2008)

I also shoot Broncolor, but I'm switching to Black Line because the Pulso mount modifiers are too expensive. A single reflector is over $250. I also just want to switch to a pack system. I had considered Profoto but in terms of price and quality it's really just a sidestep from Bron.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 27, 2008)

epatsellis said:


> Zansho,
> The Speedo is good, really good, but there's a reason why Bron is the Bentley of lighting equipment.



I don't necessarily agree. I've played with the Speedos and they seem totally consistent and real workhorses. There are few things I could ask of Profoto or Broncolor that the Black Lines don't have. One is zoom reflectors and the other is parabolic umbrellas. Beyond that, I don't consider it much of a sacrifice for me to step down.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 27, 2008)

I use the older style universal heads, and have a bevy of reflectors already, so it's less of an issue for me. The bulb adjusment is a nice feature, as some banks prefer to the bulb out further, giving you a more even light. As I noted above, had I not fallen into a 3 pack, 5 head outfit from a product shooter I know at a price I couldn't say no to, I'd likely still be using blacklines as well. The older Universal era heads have a super simple attachment method, a 6 1/4" o.d. round ring, easily made if you are into making/creating (as I frequently do)


erie


----------



## Alpha (Jul 27, 2008)

epatsellis said:


> I use the older style universal heads, and have a bevy of reflectors already, so it's less of an issue for me. The bulb adjusment is a nice feature, as some banks prefer to the bulb out further, giving you a more even light. As I noted above, had I not fallen into a 3 pack, 5 head outfit from a product shooter I know at a price I couldn't say no to, I'd likely still be using blacklines as well. The older Universal era heads have a super simple attachment method, a 6 1/4" o.d. round ring, easily made if you are into making/creating (as I frequently do)
> 
> 
> erie



If I'm not mistaken, nearly all of the new pack heads are Pulso mount. 

Once I'm making scads of money (read: 8-10 years from now), I'll buy back into Broncolor just so I can use the Para 220. Until then, I'm all set for the switch.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 27, 2008)

Zansho said:


> I've heard a lot of good things about Broncolor, but the price puts me off .  I've spent over 2k for my Speedotron set (2400 pack, 3 heads) used, and I still had to buy my modifiers.
> 
> I'm pretty happy with my speedotron right now, and they're pretty darn good in terms of their lighting output and color consistency.  To be honest, I've been eyeballing some Profoto lights, but I'll wait a bit before I buy my next set.



You'll hate me, but I bought 3 1500 w/s packs (2-304, 1-404) and 5 heads (4 universal, 1 bitube) for $450 +gas to drive to chicago (a tankful). I know the history of these packs and heads, borrowed them when I shoot in Chicago and while they're not the latest and greatest 1/10 of a stop adjustability, are as reliable as tanks.

erie


----------



## Zansho (Jul 27, 2008)

I bought mine about 5 years ago, and they're absolute tanks. They can handle pretty much any lighting task I ask of them, and then some.  

Nowadays, yeah, they're a lot cheaper now.  I remember folks paying 500-700ish for a norman flash head with battery pack and charger - I stole my two heads with 2 batteries for 170 dollars!  I couldn't believe myself. 

Honestly, I'd love a go at the Brons.  I'd love even more to have a go at your Sinar , just to see what it can do.

All in all, I'm happy with my speedos.  I probably should buy another pack and couple more heads if that's what they're going for now. The only drawback is the pack weighs more than I do, at least it feels like it lol.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 27, 2008)

DeadEye said:


> I recently put together my first studio light setup on the cheep or well cheep for what I was after. I wanted a very short flash duration with plenty of power and fast recycle as the subject was 30 feet away so I went with a speedo black line setup.  Got it all off ebay except for the beauty dish one piece at a time. I have watched just about every piece of speedotron stuff on ebay these past 6 or 8 weeks. Best bang for the buck is the brown line stuff . I watched a brown line kit go for under 500.00 this week and it had everything a home setup could want.  Pack , stands. 4 lights , softbox. Umbrellas. Cords even carry bags. If you watch and wait there are real good deals for brown line.



Sounds like a cool setup you got there. I think this is the level of gear Alpha was referring to - I know it's what I was talking about. Good stuff :thumbup: Nice post!


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Simply put. You're completely, totally, absolutely, indubitably wrong.
> 
> I'm sorry Jerry. I like you a lot but this time you're talking out your ass.


 



Zansho said:


> I'm sorry, Jerry, but he's right. I didn't see the post you just did, otherwise I'd have refuted what you posted.
> 
> Simply put, while the strobist approach is amazing, and it has taken some people to new levels, it is NOT a substitute for a good set of quality studio strobes. No way, no how, modeling lights or no.


 
Man, I wish we could sit down in a pub with a couple of beers, we'd have a few spirited conversations for sure! 

I never refuted that high W/s studio setups are better or worse. In fact I openly said that for the pro, there are likey no other solutions. But I did also say that the small setups can also have a valuable place in the professional's studio and an even bigger place in the amateur's.

Modeling lights... merely a difference in methodology. Some people prefer to see the true final effects of their setup in a test shot, not use modeling lights. Even from day 1 when I started using my studio setup with the modeling lights, I tried them a few times and never really liked them. Since I was already used to knowing how the light was going to fall in advance and then taking a test shot and see the real "final result", it got to the point where I did not even install the modeling lamps in my setup.

Besides, modeling lamps will not show you the difference in the results of different ratios from side to side, they only show you where the light will fall, and that is easy to predict or more accurately shown in a test shot, including light variances.

S'cuse me gents, I've just come back from a hard night at a client... I'm going to bed for a couple of hours.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Man, I wish we could sit down in a pub with a couple of beers, we'd have a few spirited conversations for sure!
> 
> I never refuted that high W/s studio setups are better or worse. In fact I openly said that for the pro, there are likey no other solutions. But I did also say that the small setups can also have a valuable place in the professional's studio and an even bigger place in the amateur's.
> 
> ...



You're still totally ignoring the focusing issue, even if you're adamant about disagreeing on seeing where light falls.

There are lots of situations where modeling lights are really handy, focus aside. I know few people who can nail a shot the first time or two without them. Granted, I've done it before and I'm not the ballsiest of pros, but I don't work without them when I can help it.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> You're still totally ignoring the focusing issue, even if you're adamant about disagreeing on seeing where light falls.


 
Not ignoring it at all. I see it as a non-issue (are you smacking your forehead in frustration yet? lol).   Alpha, are you saying that there is NO light in that studio except the modeling lights during your shoots?

By the time my camera starts to turn on the autofocus assist light becuase it needs it, without artificial light sources, I need ISO 1250 or better to get the shot properly exposed without strobes/speedlights. Unless a room is quite dark, I won't have issues with that. 

An example... a single 50 watt bulb 15-20 feet away is enough to let my camera autofocus perfectly well in an otherwise black room. If I drop that to about 30 watts, 1/2 the shots will give the lens fits, but I still can go to manual focus, letting the camera tell me when I am spot on.

If outdoors at night and I cannot get enough light on a subject to get the lens to focus, shine any source of light on them during the focus phase (pen light, flashlight, one of those LED lamps that is like $5 on amazon.com... whatever). 

I know, I know... I am being difficult. :lmao:


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

No, you're not being difficult. You're being obtuse. Without strong ambient lighting, I know few, if any people who can focus well without the assistance of modeling lights. I sure as hell can't. Whether the camera feels the need to use the autofocus assist I think is beside the point. You really shouldn't be auto focusing at all in the studio, and even then I trust my eye much more than I trust an AF system in a dim studio.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> You really shouldn't be auto focusing at all in the studio, and even then I trust my eye much more than I trust an AF system in a dim studio.


 
Now who's being obtuse, to think that they can decern focus better than any modern pro level dSLR on the market today by eye alone?

There are many factors we agree upon, a few we don't... and thats all good.  I've still learned a lot from this thread thanks to yours and other people's posts.

Thank-you for that.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 28, 2008)

Hmmm, my F3s, RB67s and Sinars must all be defective, try as I might, I still can't find the autofocus button...


----------



## toofpaste (Jul 28, 2008)

I seriously learned so much in 15 minutes reading this thread.....


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Now who's being obtuse, to think that they can decern focus better than any modern pro level dSLR on the market today by eye alone?
> 
> There are many factors we agree upon, a few we don't... and thats all good.  I've still learned a lot from this thread thanks to yours and other people's posts.
> 
> Thank-you for that.



Ok now you're being stubborn. And you bet your ass I can focus better. I'm not saying you should manual focus because everyone does it. I'm saying you should manual focus because of the reasons that everyone does it. There's just no good reason not to unless you're shooting a moving subject. Even then, its often preferable to back up/stop down instead.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

toofpaste said:


> I seriously learned so much in 15 minutes reading this thread.....



Well If you were reading Jerry's posts I'm afraid you probably didn't learn much


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 28, 2008)

Hey Jerry,

Really, no kidding... No one uses AF in a MF/LF studio.  Honest! It's all done by eye and if it's extremely critical a loupe is placed on the ground glass or I guess LCD panel these days if the VF loupe is inadequate or something - though in most digital studios today the image is transfered to a nearby computer in near realtime as each shot is taken and critical focus can be accomplished there. If there's someone using AF in a studio I guess we could call it personal preference but I venture to guess most other studio guys would call it incompetence. 

35mm format dSLR stuff (in the same studio) is not dissimilar. Mostly it's all manual focus even fashion stuff where the model is moving around allot. This is not excluding fashion shows either. Most guys will set focus on at least two cameras before the girls walk out and wait for them to enter the frame of the 1st cam. Snap, snap, move back a little snap snap, move back to the marker (some guys even put white tape on the floor) grab cam 2, snap snap, grab cam 1, wait for the next model, repeat.  

Paparazzi even go so far as to place the lens in MF and tape down the focus ring so that it's no longer focusable. Maybe 80 or 90% of paparazzi do it this way. They know the distance, they run up, grab the shots as many as they can, move with the model keeping the same distance and snapping.  When the distance is no longer possible to maintain the shoot is over.

AF, tracking, and etc. is _mostly_ just for us hobbyists.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Ok. Here are some reasons:
> 1) Loss of modifiers.
> -You basically lose all ability to use reflectors - Not true, Joe Mcnally uses them all the time.
> -Almost no studio modifiers are built with off-camera flash use in mind, which is why they have to be specially adapted.
> ...



It seems as if you use a lot of relative terms, like better, good, slower, faster, etc..  These don't hold up because they have no value.  Numbers speak the truth.

A lot of your reasons are also based off your opinion, and no factual evidence.  Just because you _think_ something doesn't make it true.

I think we can all agree you're very knowledgeable when it comes to photography, but I'm afraid your inability to accept others opinions will keep you from making friends here.


----------



## Zansho (Jul 28, 2008)

Thank you! I do want to reinforce that before AF came along, we were doing just fine shooting in MF back in the days of film.  I'm 32 (and yes, i'm old enough to remember film), and I had to do everything manually with a  4x5 view camera and one of my professor's 8x10 View camera.

Manual focus is quite easy if you know what you're focusing on, and critical distance.  I promise you, the shot will be in focus if you know your focal length, f-stop, and distance, and adjust accordingly.

The only time I autofocus is when I'm outside of the studio shooting a wedding or just want to be lazy and shoot instead of always thinking.  There ARE days when I just feel like snapping a shot instead of going a full professional route, lol.

I still have my old Mamiya 645 ProTL that I got back in the day, and that was total manual - everything.  I miss it, and I wish I could afford a digital mamiya, it would go nicely with the lenses I currently have for it.  Only time I shoot it is when I want to go bigger than my current 5D and scan.



Bifurcator said:


> Hey Jerry,
> 
> Really, no kidding... No one uses AF in a MF/LF studio.  Honest! It's all done by eye and if it's extremely critical a loupe is placed on the ground glass or I guess LCD panel these days if the VF loupe is inadequate or something - though in most digital studios today the image if transfered to a nearby computer as each shot is taken critical focus can be accomplished there. If there's someone using AF in a studio I guess we could call it personal preference but I venture to guess most other studio guys would call it incompetence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 28, 2008)

mr_baseball_08 said:


> I think we can all agree you're very knowledgeable when it comes to photography, but I'm afraid your inability to accept others opinions will keep you from making friends here.



Nah, being opinionated when actually he's mostly right, won't stop him from having friends here. It's the norm in these forums anyway. He even tries to be cute, funny, or polite most of the time. It's all guuud!




Zansho said:


> The only time I autofocus is when I'm outside of the studio shooting a wedding or just want to be lazy and shoot instead of always thinking.  There ARE days when I just feel like snapping a shot instead of going a full professional route, lol.



Yeah, and these thing do also have their uses in some pro gigs though. It's not totally exclusive. Like, I think high end tracking systems on some dSLRs are just totally awesome for wildlife shots and especially birds in flight. These tracking systems are even maturing to the point where most newer dSLR form-factor P&S cameras can accomplish the same things as the >$2K bodies.   

When AF first came out I can remember lots and lots of laughter from the pro sector though - and still today actually. Even in recent times I can't ever remember being on a set (movie, video, or still) where AF was being used. In fact a common joke is to accuse the cameraman (1AC "Focus Puller") of using AF.


----------



## toofpaste (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Well If you were reading Jerry's posts I'm afraid you probably didn't learn much


 
 I was referring to you and some other members.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 28, 2008)

And I think Jerry's info was good too actually. It's just not "pro studio" info is all!  I like Jerry, he's a good member here! Lots of useful tips!


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 28, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Hey Jerry,
> 
> Really, no kidding... No one uses AF in a MF/LF studio.  Honest! It's all done by eye and if it's extremely critical a loupe is placed on the ground glass or I guess LCD panel these days if the VF loupe is inadequate or something - though in most digital studios today the image is transfered to a nearby computer in near realtime as each shot is taken and critical focus can be accomplished there. If there's someone using AF in a studio I guess we could call it personal preference but I venture to guess most other studio guys would call it incompetence.
> 
> ...



believe me, if I'm getting paid for it, focus (where it's intended) is critical and on any film work, the loupe is always around my neck and used constantly. (along with my spotmeter for checking lighting ratios, one of the advantages of the "un-neccesary" modeling lights, good ones actually let you measure such things.) 99.99% of any Dslr work I do in studio is on a tripod or studio stand and manually focused as well.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

mr_baseball_08 said:


> Ok. Here are some reasons:
> 1) Loss of modifiers.
> -You basically lose all ability to use reflectors - Not true, Joe Mcnally uses them all the time.


Not without building or purchasing special brackets. That aside, studio flashes are not directional. The flash tube fires in every direction (except backwards), which is what makes reflectors work the way they do. Perhaps you're thinking of hand-held reflectors. I'm talking about the kind that fits around the flash tube.



> -No overpowering of the sun on location - Not true, http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2008/...of-the-desert/


LOL that is not overpowering the sun. That's fill flash at dusk. Overpowering is when you shoot in broad daylight with strobes so powerful that the background appears dark. All that "override" **** aside, you shouldn't have to shoot at 1/8000. You couldn't get me to shoot at 1/8000 if you asked me to photograph the testicles on a hummingbird. And how many speelights did he have to use? I can do it with a single strobe.




> -Inability to use large modifiers, especially gridded - Not true, I've seen large gridded softboxes powered by strobes


Again, not without special rigging.



> -Inability to light large areas or full-length subjects - Not true again, see Joe Mcnally or go through the strobist pool


The fact of the matter is that something like a speedlight does not have the power output needed when firing into a very large umbrella or softbox (especially double-baffled) to accomplish this. At the very least, not nearly as well.



> -Inability to control multiple lights from a central location - Umm, no, pocket wizards, anyone?


Knowing what you're talking about, anyone? Triggers only control when the flash fires, not its output.



> -Constant purchasing of smaller batteries - Rechargeables. Buy a pack of 24 and you're good for a whole weekend of shooting.


Most strobists cite ultimate portability as the big plus. If weight is an issue, you use non-rechargeable lithium batteries.



> -Recycle time slows as batteries lose power - Eh, yeah, to a point (i.e. batteries are almost dead)


Probably because the measly things draw something like 80w/s. On more powerful off-camera flashes this is a real issue.



> -No fan cooling (meltdown or burnout risk) - Only seen one burn out SB-800 in my time


Fair, but it happens. When it doesn't happen it's only because the things aren't very powerful.



> -Running around to adjust settings on each flash - Not really, Commander mode, man.


Generally you're not shooting with one one the camera, so there's still running around to be done. 



> -Slower setup time because of extra brackets and adapters needed. - Nope, disagreed.


If you insist.



> It seems as if you use a lot of relative terms, like better, good, slower, faster, etc..  These don't hold up because they have no value.  Numbers speak the truth.


LOL. All the numbers are on my side.



> A lot of your reasons are also based off your opinion, and no factual evidence.  Just because you _think_ something doesn't make it true.


My opinion based on using both setups professionally, and countless other pros who agree.



> I think we can all agree you're very knowledgeable when it comes to photography, but I'm afraid your inability to accept others opinions will keep you from making friends here.


As the other pros here have noted. I'm mostly correct (not entirely sure what they disagree on). It's you, Jerry, and the rest of the strobist crop who are fighting the uphill battle. I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: think it possible that you may be mistaken.


----------



## toofpaste (Jul 28, 2008)

We should have a victory dance smiley


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

Toofpaste is my hype man.


----------



## toofpaste (Jul 28, 2008)

You should run for presidente.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> LOL. All the numbers are on my side.



What numbers are on your side?  The only numbers I've seen in this thread are WS numbers.  Just because you _say_ the numbers are on your side, doesn't mean they are?



Alpha said:


> My opinion based on using both setups professionally, and countless other pros who agree.



I don't see any of these countless pro chiming in here.  Apparently you're the only pro who frequents this forum.  And FYI, countless other pro's out there use strobes, so that nullifies your argument.



Alpha said:


> As the other pros here have noted. I'm mostly correct (not entirely sure what they disagree on). It's you, Jerry, and the rest of the strobist crop who are fighting the uphill battle. I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: think it possible that you may be mistaken.



As I said before, I don't see too many pro's around these parts?  And since we're on the subject, what makes a pro?  Are you a pro?  If so, I declare myself a pro too, so my opinion counts as much as yours.  

Why do you have a chip on your shoulder with the "strobist crop" as you call them?  If you're work is so awesome with the lights you use, why do you give a damn what we're doing?


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 28, 2008)

Where to even start???

Joe McNally uses reflectors, true, but not the kind we are talking about, these fit the flash head, and allow you to vary the angular coverage to suit your desired need, not what most of us old timers would call a fill card.

Overpowering of sun on location-not gonna happen without enough light, and except at close distances, any of the small strobes just won't cut it. (Simple numbers really, for a typical 1/250 flash sync, you need a flash that will deliver f22 or better(ISO 250, F16 for ISO 100 or so), to get your daylight down 1 stop, do the math, tell me how many feet before a SB800 runs out of steam. I have no clue as I don't (nor plan on buying ) one You'll also notice in Joe McNally's equipment list there's quite an array of Elihchrom as well, each tool has it's uses)

Large gridded softboxes powered by strobes are an exercise in frustration, at all but the highest ISO settings. Once again simple math, with 2-3 stops lost by diffusors, and attempting to spread a miniscule amount of light over a large area, you'll be lucky to get f 5.6 2' away with ISO 160. And you lose the greatest advantage to a properly built soft box, evenness of light from corner to corner, I've yet to see one used with a hotshoe flash that isn't a hot spot in the center and tapering a few stops off to the edges. You could just use a scrim if that's the effect you really want and save a few stops of light.

inability to light large areas/more lights- you are correct, it just comes down to how much light you can generate, period.

Pocket wizards are great, but setting power levels with them isn't one of their strengths, if it can even be done. ( I use Broncolor IRS triggers)

Rechargeable batteries are great, but once again we're into pain/gain ratios lots of pain, and things can be done much easier with either an AC supply or pack/heads.

Adjusting settings via commander mode...well, that may be ok, but where do I find it on my 8x10 Sinars menu? (then again, where do I find the menu???) (I'm guessing that this is one of those Nikon things that they've been using, wouldn't know, as the only digital I use is a Fuji S2 for proofs)

In all honesty, by time you buy pocket wizards, stand brackets, etc. you can buy a mid level pack and heads, that fit comfortably in a small case and give you far more control than you're likely to get otherwise. Most of the "strobist" camp have years of working with big pack/head systems, and already have a lot of the base knowledge, something most (99% or more, by my guess) of the people on this board don't have. If all you ever shoot with a Dslr, you can probably get away with it, but on one shoot, I may be using a Dslr, a MF digital back, MF film, LF digital back and LF film, and the only solution that will reliably work is a pack/head or monolights (yuck!) solution.

As far as who is/isn't a pro, I use the simple "does this person derive a major part of their income from photography?" test. In my case, I do, and have for a quarter century or so. And as I stated, occaisionally I've used my Metz 60CT1s on stands and umbrella's or as a fill from time to time, especially where there isn't power available.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

mr_baseball_08 said:


> Why do you have a chip on your shoulder with the "strobist crop" as you call them?  If you're work is so awesome with the lights you use, why do you give a damn what we're doing?



I don't give a damn what anyone else does. But I do give a damn about curbing the mis-information trend on the web.

On that note, I'm out.


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> One being an amateur home user, the other a professional with much different needs.



<< Exactly! me thinks that professionals don't often offer the best advice to amateurs.

  (its like watching a tennis match... very educational toss of a ball back and forth)


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2008)

I don't see how you guys can focus with the crappy viewfinders in modern DSLRs today.... they are absolutely horrid.  It was one of the main reasons for my choice of cameras...


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

usayit said:


> I don't see how you guys can focus with the crappy viewfinders in modern DSLRs today.... they are absolutely horrid.  It was one of the main reasons for my choice of cameras...



How's that meter looking in the M8 finder against bright sun? And how are those frame lines in backlighting?

Everybody's got a crutch. Modeling lights solve my focus issues. That was my whole point.


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2008)

btw... I have a few flashes acquired during the years.  Battery options are NOT limited.  
* several came with a high voltage battery pack.  Fast recycling time.
* The 622 pro that came with my pentax 67 has a battery pack as well.  That sucker has punch.
* several more compact (the 422D) have a small slot cut into the battery door and coiled wires to 4 D-cell batteries.  Same recycling time BUT longer running.  DIY from radio shack parts.  Run the cables to small lowepro velcro shut cases.
* My 550EX has a coiled wire that goes to the Canon Transistor pack which inturn has been modified to take 6 D cell batteries.  Faster recycling time and longer running.  I use this setup a lot.

Oh lets not forget the multitude of options from Quantum instruments.  I've tagged along several wedding photographers and many still use the same flash systems from before they went digital.  

Granted they don't have the battery and power of a studio strobe sets with power BUT I guarantee you that a lone amateur (me) is going to take them along more often.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 28, 2008)

usayit said:


> btw... I have a few flashes acquired during the years.  Battery options are NOT limited.
> * several came with a high voltage battery pack.  Fast recycling time.
> * The 622 pro that came with my pentax 67 has a battery pack as well.  That sucker has punch.
> * several more compact (the 422D) have a small slot cut into the battery door and coiled wires to 4 D-cell batteries.  Same recycling time BUT longer running.  DIY from radio shack parts.  Run the cables to small lowepro velcro shut cases.
> ...


Yup, that's why I have a minivan, or if need be, access to a box truck, for location work, bulky in their transit cases, but even United Parcel Smashers can't hurt any of the equipment packed to go on location.


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> How's that meter looking in the M8 finder against bright sun? And how are those frame lines in backlighting?



The frame lines are great!  The frame lines are far and above better than my M6 in regards to seeing them clearly.  M6 bodies are known to have flare issues at the focusing patch.  I'm not sure in comparison to the M7 as I never owned one.  The M8's framelines are calibrated differently from the previous M-bodies.  As such, it takes a little time to adjust... I like it because it general means that you get a tiny bit more than the frame lines.  Just enough to take care of any slight framing mishaps.  

The meter works fine.... its very biased towards the center (remember we are talking conservative Leica).  You don't have the option for any type of evaluative mumbo jumbo intelligent metering.  So exposure mishaps are almost 90% of the time the photographer and does require experience to leverage properly.  If you pretend you are shooting slide film, the meter works great!  Its just like shooting with a traditional Leica except that film has more latitude.  Gotta watch those highlights when shooting on a digital sensor.

There are a few quirks about the camera but that's what you expect from a small speciality company of any time (Ferrari and lamborghini comes to mind- no I don't own either).

Its easier to focus a rangefinder in lower light... period.  Much easier... more so than even the 1-series (which are not as bright as even the older Canon bodies ex. F-1).


Other than the shutter selection dial of my M6 being opposite of the M8, I'm enjoying my M8 more so than my 1D MII.  If I ever did go on assignment, I'd probably still rely on the 1dMII and the M8 on my belt as a secondary.


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2008)

epatsellis said:


> Yup, that's why I have a minivan, or if need be, access to a box truck, for location work, bulky in their transit cases, but even United Parcel Smashers can't hurt any of the equipment packed to go on location.



something an amateur like me and Jerry won't have access to.  

Btw... I just did a few shots of my 20 month old son (hard bugger to keep in one setting) with a budget strobist setup (see other thread).  I had a blast... and I was able to go directly to the mall for some shopping afterwards.  Enjoying yourself and being practical is what counts if you are not in it for a paycheck but for pure enjoyment.  Don't loose sight of that difference.

No box truck or minivan full of expensive equipment to worry about in the mall parking lot.  

As I said.... pro versus amateur || strobist versus full studio strobes.  You guys are arguing apples and oranges.

But .. please continue.. it is an amusing thread full of good info.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jul 28, 2008)

Another thing no one has mentioned is that this Strobist "movement" (if that's what it could even be called) is hardly even a year old yet and it's already getting amazing coverage.  How long have continuous lighting systems been around?  Half a century?

Manufacturers are slowly stepping to the plate but I think over the next couple of years we'll see giant feature increases on the strobe market.  Portability is the new big thing and I think we're going to start seeing a market shift from the giant bulky systems so these smaller strobes that can go anywhere.  You just have to give technology the time to catch up to what the consumer is asking for.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

mr_baseball_08 said:


> Another thing no one has mentioned is that this Strobist "movement" (if that's what it could even be called) is hardly even a year old yet and it's already getting amazing coverage.  How long have continuous lighting systems been around?  Half a century?
> 
> Manufacturers are slowly stepping to the plate but I think over the next couple of years we'll see giant feature increases on the strobe market.  Portability is the new big thing and I think we're going to start seeing a market shift from the giant bulky systems so these smaller strobes that can go anywhere.  You just have to give technology the time to catch up to what the consumer is asking for.



This is America. Your average consumer is retarded.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 28, 2008)

The ultimate lighting solution! 







Twin modeling lights with built-in reflectors!  State-of-the-art!

Or a Multi-directional parabolic hi-tech beauty light:






Yeah baby, yeah!

​


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jul 28, 2008)

Maybe, but the average consumer decides what the market will and will not bear, not the professionals.

At one point most all of the pro's didn't like digital and never thought film would be overcome.  The average consumer made the push and digital is the thing now.  Strobes will the same.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 28, 2008)

The lighting you use - as any _real_ professional will tell you - depends upon what you are trying to do and where.
I worked with most of the top advertising pros in the early 80's on stuff like this:
http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/images/bensons.htm

This particular little AD&D award winner (photographer Ed White) was lit in a very interesting way.
http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/images/bensons_files/image006.jpg
If any of the people holding forth on here can tell me what the main light source for this shot was then I might believe that they actually know what they are talking about.
But all I see at the moment is posturing and posing coming from most contributors (and one in particular).
What neither 'side' in this 'debate' can see is that there is no real argument at all. Just people polishing their egos.

I have a Swiss Army knife. It is a useful thing with many features. I could use it to make an ornately carved chair if I could be bothered. But I could do the same job a lot quicker with the proper tools.
Lighting is pretty much the same. You use what you need to use to get the effects you want. Sometimes your choice is limited by budget. Sometimes the constraints of the shot dictate. Sometimes you have to work with what you've got.
It's certainly easier if you have _exactly_ the right piece of kit, but there are times when the right piece of kit doesn't exist, or it's got lost or stolen or broken, and you have to do the best you can with what you do have.
No one wants to hear excuses - they just want the shots by the deadline.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

Who knows, what with the low quality and all. I'm gonna say candle or like, or sun.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 28, 2008)

mr_baseball_08 said:


> Another thing no one has mentioned is that this Strobist "movement" (if that's what it could even be called) is hardly even a year old yet and it's already getting amazing coverage.  How long have continuous lighting systems been around?  Half a century?



What???  Sure, put it on a web-page and call it a movement and convince people that it's something new.  LOL

I was doing the same kind of things 30 years ago.  I kid you not.  And I'm sure I wasn't the only one.  Every piece of equipment there is for this "strobist" stuff existed 30 years ago already and was in wide use.

New movement?


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jul 28, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> This particular little AD&D award winner (photographer Ed White) was lit in a very interesting way.
> http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/images/bensons_files/image006.jpg
> If any of the people holding forth on here can tell me what the main light source for this shot was then I might believe that they actually know what they are talking about.
> But all I see at the moment is posturing and posing coming from most contributors (and one in particular).
> What neither 'side' in this 'debate' can see is that there is no real argument at all. Just people polishing their egos.



If anyone here can tell me what that's a picture of, I'll believe you know what your talking about.  Haha, how are we suppose to derive anything from a 575x300 low res scan?

I'm guessing bees and/or large piles of dung, but who knows..


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 28, 2008)

mr_baseball_08 said:


> If anyone here can tell me what that's a picture of, I'll believe you know what your talking about.  Haha, how are we suppose to derive anything from a 575x300 low res scan?



Yes, it is a bit 'low quality' but it's the best I can find. And it was a 48 sheet billboard poster so it's hard to find a scanner to fit.

I'll see if I can find better.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jul 28, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Yes, it is a bit 'low quality' but it's the best I can find. And it was a 48 sheet billboard poster so it's hard to find a scanner to fit.



LOL!!  :lmao:


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

What did I get it right or something? I figure if I'd answered incorrectly Hertz would have already begun a long diatribe about how I don't know anything about my own equipment because I couldn't identify the light source.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 28, 2008)

@ Mr. Baseball

So you realize and accept now that "strobism" is 30 to 40 years old?


----------



## DeadEye (Jul 28, 2008)

Gee Golly Willikers ~ Were did the OP go? Did we scare him off ?  In truth  I consider myself to be a strobist and all that means is that I have learned to use those little battery powered speed lights off camera to get certain jobs done. Hertz is correct with the tool analogy .  I got a shot recently with a speed light off camera that would have been rather impractical and VERY dangerous to do with the pack system. It was on the stern of a tug boat with waves washing over the deck .  I dont think I would have liked shorting a cable with salt water then discharging a big capacitor in it.  BIG BANG or and 900 volt shock.  The speed light in close and protected by a ziplock freezer bag did the trick nicely and paid my electric bill for the month.   For studio work the pack is the best tool for the job as the client expects to get what they paid for and that is often requires a big soft box.


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> What did I get it right or something? I figure if I'd answered incorrectly Hertz would have already begun a long diatribe about how I don't know anything about my own equipment because I couldn't identify the light source.



Allow me to quote myself....



usayit said:


> I think what put Jerry on the defensive was that "defensive and self-righteous" could easily describe your (Alpha's) responses.





I think Hertz's analogy fits along the same lines as what I feel and what Jerry was posting.  I just recently starting using flashes as a learning tool and enjoying myself very much..  didn't realize I made a such a wrong choice.  ...  



Deadeye, unfortunately you are probably right about the OP.  The only reason why I stick around is that I'm been participating on the TPF long enough to know it has its ups and downs.


----------



## K_Pugh (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm feeling a little light headed now.. (bad pun intended)

I don't know much about either, i mean, i've just started using a couple of speedlights off camera but it's just common sense to know that both small flash units and professional studio lights have their own time and place. It's like everything else in photography, it's a compromise. Unless you've got all the time, money & space you need something has to take a back seat.. whether it's light quality, speed, practicality, power etc.

Just the wat i see it..

I'm just sayin'.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jul 29, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> @ Mr. Baseball
> 
> So you realize and accept now that "strobism" is 30 to 40 years old?



No.  Sure strobes have been around for a long time, but only recently have they began a push towards off camera lighting which is essentially what "strobism" means.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

usayit said:


> Allow me to quote myself....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're really misunderstanding me. My gripe is not with off-camera flashes or their use. It's with people recommending them as catch-alls. Most times someone brings up studio strobes, they qualify the suggestion with talk of weight, size, and portability. But rarely, if ever, do "strobists" suggest small off-camera flashes and include their many caveats. I don't thinks it's fair to people who are looking for a relatively un-biased suggestion. Yes, this is the internet. And yes, everyone has an opinion. My point here is not to knock off-camera flashes outright, but to discuss their shortcomings. I have a problem with people who pretend that they have none.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 29, 2008)

You know... I tried to be polite.  I tried to be open, and went over and above to learn, but when one person is in lala-land and thinks they know what is good for everyone in every situation, thats my line, my limit.  Alpha may be an excellent photographer.  He may know a lot about lighting.  

As a human being, though, he kinda sucks.  *I* have a problem with *that*.

Fortunately, the solution for me is very simple... it is something that he enjoyed brandishing himself in another post... the ignore button.  I've officially exercised my right to put Alpha on my list.  

Now, sir... you may proceed to talk out of YOUR ass to your heart's content, because I no longer need to see it.  

Have a nice one.


----------



## K_Pugh (Jul 29, 2008)

.. and i thought snoots were fun.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

Oh boy.

Jerry I've got no problem with you. Sorry if I offended you.

And I'm doubly sorry that you can't read this.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 29, 2008)

K_Pugh said:


> I'm feeling a little light headed now.. (bad pun intended)
> 
> I don't know much about either, i mean, i've just started using a couple of speedlights off camera but it's just common sense to know that both small flash units and professional studio lights have their own time and place. It's like everything else in photography, it's a compromise. Unless you've got all the time, money & space you need something has to take a back seat.. whether it's light quality, speed, practicality, power etc.
> 
> ...



Mainly the difference between the two is just power. Higher power allows you to be very dynamic with just one or two strobes (usually just one for the experienced gurus). With power and size comes the ability to fill large translucent panels, bounce off reflective panels, and etc. that the little pop-flashes are going to have a very hard time doing. When they have a hard time at it you end up with hot and cold spots and to get rid of them you have to twiddle around in the adjust<->test-shot cycle allot. Size and power also afford you a much larger set so if you want to frame something larger than 10 or 15 feet it's no problem and you can still get soft even lighting that a pack system will allow.  There probably isn't all that much difference in cost if you buy used or hunt around. I wouldn't recommend buying battery operated flash units used though.




mr_baseball_08 said:


> No.  Sure strobes have been around for a long time, but only recently have they began a push towards off camera lighting which is essentially what "strobism" means.



Poppycock! Balderdash! You must be very young and are just discovering it for yourself or something. The actual reality is quite different however!  Just pick up a photography book written in the early to mid 70's. And all these same techniques are discussed right in there. The recommended setup from any dealer was alway a two flash system and always both were for off camera use. Either a large long bracket system (more rare) or tripods and reflectors and diffusers. No one serious about flash photography used on camera flashes much - and it all started just months after electronic flashes were introduced! It was happening with bulbs too tho not as much. Bulbs were kinda fun though   Spent bulbs look kewl!!  Anyone remember "Flash Cubes"? Weeee...

You're basically saying something as absurd as "The rubber tire is a new invention only a year or two old."  :stun: :lmao:


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 29, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Anyone remember "Flash Cubes"? Weeee...



Just like it was yesterday... lol
I remember them being a pain too... 4 shots and you had to change the cube if you wanted more light.   

How about that row of 6 bulbs in 1 clip for the old Polariod cameras?  That was the next step just before "real" flashes came around.  Thank goodness strobes were made shortly after that, it was an interesting time to be in photography for sure!

Funny, as far as photography has come in my lifetime, very little has REALLY changed.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 29, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Just like it was yesterday... lol
> I remember them being a pain too... 4 shots and you had to change the cube if you wanted more light.
> 
> How about that row of 6 bulbs in 1 clip for the old Polariod cameras?  That was the next step just before "real" flashes came around.  Thank goodness strobes were made shortly after that, it was an interesting time to be in photography for sure!
> ...



Yup, I remember those strips!   And yup, very little has changed in the past 40 years. In the past 20 or so the (industry) format change-over pains to digital have been interesting though. From 40 or 50 years ago and back there were some pretty rapid and major changes happening. Color film! Format standardization. 35mm in a cartridge that didn't have to be loaded in a black bag, cameras you could carry down the street and not look like you were moving out of town, Cameras you could put in a pocket, shutter technology, etc.


----------



## pm63 (Jul 30, 2008)

usayit said:


> The only reason why I stick around is that I'm been participating on the TPF long enough to know it has its ups and downs.


 
Haha, believe me that compared to _some_ of the places I've visited on the internet, this is the epitome of polite, intellectual discussion. There is disagreement, but it is mature disagreement.

Besides, heated discussions are always the most interesting and manage to hold my attention. I don't know about others who have been following, but as someone who intends to step into the world of off-camera lighting soon, this thread has been very informative and a real eye-opener, beyond simply a budget strobist level.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 30, 2008)

Yep! Heated debate rocks! It's just when the word "you" starts getting used in sentences that things go out the window.


----------



## mr_baseball_08 (Jul 31, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Poppycock! Balderdash! You must be very young and are just discovering it for yourself or something. The actual reality is quite different however!  Just pick up a photography book written in the early to mid 70's. And all these same techniques are discussed right in there. The recommended setup from any dealer was alway a two flash system and always both were for off camera use. Either a large long bracket system (more rare) or tripods and reflectors and diffusers. No one serious about flash photography used on camera flashes much - and it all started just months after electronic flashes were introduced! It was happening with bulbs too tho not as much. Bulbs were kinda fun though   Spent bulbs look kewl!!  Anyone remember "Flash Cubes"? Weeee...
> 
> You're basically saying something as absurd as "The rubber tire is a new invention only a year or two old."  :stun: :lmao:



I guess you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  I'm not saying off camera lighting is a new "thing."  I may be a young photographer but I am well aware of that fact.  

I'm simply saying that this idea of "strobism" is a relatively new thing.  New companies are popping up every single day just to feed the strobist community.  Lumopro, Pocketwizard, Radiopopper, etc.  Lastolite, a 20 year old company, has recently began releasing products featured for battery powered strobes.  I suppose on this issue we may just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 31, 2008)

Oh, I see what you're saying. OK, yeah you're right in that regard. The word "strobist" or "strobism" isn't even an officially recognized word yet.   80% of the products and 99.9% of the techniques are the same however and that was my argument. So the techniques have only recently been unified and conceptualized under the banner of "strobism" but are themselves only just slightly younger than electronic flash units - which are about... mmm... 40 years old or so.  In a way I guess you're saying that the isolation, definition, and commercialization of these aspects of photography are what's new. And that's true. Before, it was just common information and DIY rigging we all shared with each other in books, papers, classes, and word of mouth and we all just called it "flash photography" or simply "photography".


----------

