|
FunkyJunk posted:That's not a bad idea. I'll do some experimenting with setups the day before the conference. I guess the only thing is that you might have problems triggering the flashes if you have line-of-sight blocked unless you're using radio triggers.
|
| # ? Jan 30, 2009 18:49 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:15 |
|
|
HPL posted:I guess the only thing is that you might have problems triggering the flashes if you have line-of-sight blocked unless you're using radio triggers. My tests with the Nikon stuff (D300 and SB600) seems to indicate that you don't need to have direct line-of-sight all the time. You can stuff the speedlights inside cabinets, under chairs, etc. and they'll still work. It's proven to be pretty reliable. I haven't tested it at anything approaching long distance or with a lot of activity in the area, though, and that might introduce enough signal scatter so that it wouldn't work.
|
| # ? Jan 30, 2009 21:14 |
|
|
goddamn it, quote/=edit
|
| # ? Jan 30, 2009 21:14 |
|
|
FunkyJunk posted:My tests with the Nikon stuff (D300 and SB600) seems to indicate that you don't need to have direct line-of-sight all the time. You can stuff the speedlights inside cabinets, under chairs, etc. and they'll still work. It's proven to be pretty reliable. I haven't tested it at anything approaching long distance or with a lot of activity in the area, though, and that might introduce enough signal scatter so that it wouldn't work. My experience is that the Nikon CLS works well in reasonably small enclosed spaces ie. in apartments. I can put the flash in one room fire the commander in another and it works. Even when the signal has to be reflected at least 2 times before it reaches the sensor. On the other hand if you have large open space - with no walls nearby to reflect the signal, ie. outdoors - the line-of-sight has to be spot on. I've had to use radio trigger when outside to get a reliable action. A large lecture hall is probably something in between.
|
| # ? Jan 30, 2009 21:44 |
|
|
DoLittle posted:My experience is that the Nikon CLS works well in reasonably small enclosed spaces ie. in apartments. I can put the flash in one room fire the commander in another and it works. Even when the signal has to be reflected at least 2 times before it reaches the sensor. Good to know. Thanks for the tip.
|
| # ? Jan 30, 2009 21:54 |
|
|
What are some of the more reputable brand names if i'm looking into some inexpensive stuff for starting out/learning with? I was thinking about this kit. I know the stands are probably cheaper than dirt but are the lights any good? Also i'm assuming I will be able to easily mount a softbox or umbrella to these, am I way off base? I know there is the Alien Bee kit, but frankly i'm trying to hold off on spending that much until I know if i'm gonna stuck at studio work or not.
|
| # ? Jan 31, 2009 18:33 |
|
|
If you're not willing to spend even the Alien Bee money you might be better off with sticks-in-a-can and $20 lights from the hardware store.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 13:23 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you're not willing to spend even the Alien Bee money you might be better off with sticks-in-a-can and $20 lights from the hardware store.  poo poo like this is off-putting. There are inexpensive off-camera lighting options for those who aren't ready to drop "Alien Bee money" yet. I'm no expert but the Vivitar 285, or one of many older non-TTL Nikon speedlights, can be had in multiples for the price of one AB. And requisite Cactus triggers, stands, clamps and a medium softbox can be had for the price of one AB battery pack/power inverter needed to use an AB remotely. $500 for lighting equipment: 2+ (depending on how good a deal you can score) older Nikon speedlights and/or Vivitar 285, plus all the corresponding equipment, and maybe even a softbox... ~or~ 1 (very nice) AB400 and battery pack, and no triggers or stands or anything else. Also you'll need another $25, $80 if you want to double your flash power with an AB800. And even when you do upgrade to AB, it's not like you're going to hurl your old flashes into the nearest slow-moving river. They can keep their place in your kit, or you can resell them for a decent price (lighting equipment doesn't depreciate in value anywhere near the way camera bodies do.) Yes, it is the grand dream of the studio photographer to have a veritable army of Alien Bees at her disposal, but building that kit takes time and money. DarthJeebus posted:What are some of the more reputable brand names if i'm looking into some inexpensive stuff for starting out/learning with? I was thinking about this kit. I know the stands are probably cheaper than dirt but are the lights any good? Also i'm assuming I will be able to easily mount a softbox or umbrella to these, am I way off base? pwn fucked around with this message at Feb 1, 2009 around 13:47 |
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 13:37 |
|
x A BILLION
|
If you really want to play this numbers game bullshit, you can get an absolute fuckton of pan lights, 2x4's and other various lumber, concrete mix, various cans, fabric for diffusion / backdrop, plexiglass for doing other neat poo poo, etc for $500. It's funny how you're circle jerking Strobist, bitching and moaning about how the big mean photo people don't recognize the brilliance of 30 year old strobes, and yet you go out of your way to take a poo poo over anything else. The stuff suggested is coming from prophotolife -- which if you've watched -- the guy uses the exact poo poo described above in his pro studio. Last time I checked David Hobby was just a freelancer.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 17:11 |
|
|
My alienbee kit cost 380, with softbox. Would not have the same capabilities with shoe flashes for that money.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 18:21 |
|
|
pwn posted:/ Everything I need to know I learned from Stobist... When did DarthJeebus say he wanted battery power? The kit he posted ran off of a wall socket. So by including the $300 battery pack with the AB, you're either assuming he wants to be a strobist like you, or trying to make the AB seem too expensive. Either way, intentionally or not, you're misleading him. Oh, and DarthJeebus was looking to spend under $200, not ~$500. DJ, If you're willing to pony up a little bit more money, get an AB400. The constant lighting isn't going to show you if you're good at studio work because they're not for studio photography. Find me one professional (or serious hobbyist) who uses constant lighting for a majority of their work outside of a niche market, and I'll find a live, tap-dancing jimmy hoffa. IF you do end up sucking at studio light, the AB will resell much better than the constants would, either way.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 18:25 |
|
|
Hot lights are a waste of money. Not that there aren't situations where they would be useful, but using them as your only light sources will be frustrating and your results will suck.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 18:31 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Hot lights are a waste of money. Not that there aren't situations where they would be useful, but using them as your only light sources will be frustrating and your results will suck. Agreeing with this. Hot lights suck.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 18:43 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Hot lights are a waste of money. Not that there aren't situations where they would be useful, but using them as your only light sources will be frustrating and your results will suck. I´ve been photographed under hotlights before, and IT SUCKED BALLS. It was probably a 10 minute shoot, and I was hot/sweaty, and near blind with a headache. From the models perspective, hot lights suck.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 18:45 |
|
|
I wouldnt mind paying the extra for the Alien Bee kit, but I guess I thought I needed more than one light, and I can't afford two ABs. I was planning on two hotlights for background illumination and a speedlight to get myself started. If anyone knows a better way, by all means please help me spend my money more wisely.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 18:57 |
|
|
I think working with a single light and reflector is a better route than overwhelming yourself with multi light setups from the get go. \/\/ thats kinda what I was getting at as well. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at Feb 1, 2009 around 19:13 |
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 19:03 |
|
|
You can do more with one good light than you can with two lovely ones.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 19:06 |
|
|
DarthJeebus posted:I wouldnt mind paying the extra for the Alien Bee kit, but I guess I thought I needed more than one light, and I can't afford two ABs. AB400 reflector w/stand Lightstand This whole package rounds out to ~$400, and it's fantastic. The amount of things you can do with one good strobe and a solid reflector are seemingly endless. The Lightstand comes off of the alienbees website, and some people don't like their quality- however the AB400 is really light. If you can find a better stand for cheaper, go for it. Hell, you might be able to find the stands and reflectors used locally- check craigslist. But the strobe should come new w/a warranty, IMO. There's very few things worse than getting ready for a shoot and having your used equipment crap out, and know that it's simply money lost- not time spend waiting for a replacement. That's one of the main advantages of Paul C. Buff (who makes Alienbees)- their customer service is legend and deserving of their sterling reputation.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 19:38 |
|
|
brad industry posted:You can do more with one good light than you can with two lovely ones. That, AND, just like a lot of people advise to start with a 50mm and learn how you like to shoot, start with one light till you learn the basics and how you like to shoot. When you have 5 lights, everything looks like a 5 light situation. You get creative with only one.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 20:13 |
|
|
Alright guys, I think you've convinced me. I will grab the beginner bee kit and a a decent reflector. Are there any other accessories I'll need?
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 20:18 |
|
|
Can someone point me to a resource that can help me understand at what point a Alien Bees B400 is not enough, and a B800 would be recommended?
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 20:36 |
|
|
When you need to double the amount of light that you are working with-- ie you need more depth of field, more range, more power to drown out ambient light.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 20:45 |
|
|
You should pretty much always buy the most powerful you can afford regardless of whether you think you'll need it or not (because at some point, you will). You can always go down more or throw ND filters on it if you want it less. You can always up your ISO to get more power if you need it but that doesn't work if you're shooting when it's daylight or there's lots of ambient.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 20:51 |
|
|
brad industry posted:You should pretty much always buy the most powerful you can afford regardless of whether you think you'll need it or not (because at some point, you will). You can always go down more or throw ND filters on it if you want it less. What he said. I had the money for a B1600, so I got it. Inside I only use it at 1/4 power with an umbrella, but I have been able to use it outside (with the Vagabond II  ) and its awesome at full blast.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 22:24 |
|
|
brad industry posted:You can do more with one good light than you can with two lovely ones. Pretty much this. When I do a shoot indoors I have my AB400 and usually a couple hotshoe flashes in my bag. 75% of the time the hotshoe flashes stay in the bag. With a decent umbrella/softbox (umbrella, in your budget) and a reflector, you can do most everything you'll need to do. And yes, hot lights suck. Hard. And yes, the AlienBees kit will give you more flexibility and better light than the one you linked, while being around the same price. Also, people need to stop thinking that the AB400 is just 4 285HVs taped together. In terms of sheer light output, yes, probably. You get so much more though - a modeling light, lack of some plastic fresnel lens on your flash head, insane recycling times (half a second from full power), and not having to worry about batteries. I understand that for some situations hotshoe flashes are the way to go, but the "why would you get an AB400, a 285HV is so much less" argument really makes very little sense.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2009 23:26 |
|
|
I've seen some interesting work with hotlights, but my guess is the hotlights I've seen used are more expensive than my strobe setup by a longshot.
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2009 00:01 |
|
|
Game time! Guess how this was lit without any kind of exif data cheating (don't look at it!)... (not a special photo, but serves this purpose) http://flickr.com/photos/davidchilders/3009100681/ 
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2009 04:38 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Game time! Guess how this was lit without any kind of exif data cheating (don't look at it!)... If you have to make a big deal out of it, it's probably on-camera.
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2009 05:12 |
|
|
Yeah, pop up. I've never seen such even soft light from a pop up flash, but it worked out just fine for that snapshot. Are there any tricks you guys know to using the pop up, until I get a 430ex II I'm stuck with it when I absolutely have to have flash, and this is probably my only photo ever that looks ok with it.
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at Feb 2, 2009 around 05:42 |
| # ? Feb 2, 2009 05:29 |
|
|
Put a translucent film canister on the pop-up, and push it 0.5EV or so to compensate. Costs 2 cents. Or you can make your own bracket and stick it in your hot shoe like this. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at Feb 2, 2009 around 08:47 |
| # ? Feb 2, 2009 07:51 |
|
|
A diffuser like that works for macro when you're 4" away from your subject, when you're 8' away it's no better than a hotshoe. Anyway, an AB400 costs about $100 more than a 285. All of the other accessories that you will need are basically the same price either way, and you will end up spending several hundred dollars whether or not you start hacking up your grandmothers tupperware. Thats really all there is to it... do you want a bigger flash that requires AC power but delivers a lot more light and a lot faster recycle, or you want a little dinky flash you can take anywhere.
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2009 23:52 |
|
|
evensevenone posted:Thats really all there is to it... do you want a bigger flash that requires AC power but delivers a lot more light and a lot faster recycle, or you want a little dinky flash you can take anywhere. I want a bigger flash I can take anywhere. 
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 00:11 |
|
|
I'm not going to lie, I've considered (more seriously than I should) getting the vagabond 2 battery pack and puting it in a backpack, then handholding the ab 400/small softbox for some stuff. I don't want to move down to a hotshoe flash for event stuff, I love the setup I have too much
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 00:15 |
|
|
Cross-posting from PAD. drat, this kind of photo is hard. Getting the lighting even, and with a black uniform and a pale person. Two shoot through umbrellas, one above camera pointing down, one below camera pointing up, at same distance from subject as lens. 
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 00:25 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Cross-posting from PAD. Well the angle is unflattering for one. You should be higher up, or have her head angled down. Also it looks like your lighting is 1:1 ratio. I'd drop the bottom light to a 1:2 ratio or even 1:4 for a bit more volume. You can even move the top one a bit to one side, and the bottom a bit to the other side. Right now it's very, very flat, and not in a good way. The shadow above her head from the bottom light is also very distracting.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 00:36 |
|
|
Toupee posted:If you really want to play this numbers game bullshit, you can get an absolute fuckton of pan lights, 2x4's and other various lumber, concrete mix, various cans, fabric for diffusion / backdrop, plexiglass for doing other neat poo poo, etc for $500. It's funny how you're circle jerking Strobist, bitching and moaning about how the big mean photo people don't recognize the brilliance of 30 year old strobes, and yet you go out of your way to take a poo poo over anything else. The stuff suggested is coming from prophotolife -- which if you've watched -- the guy uses the exact poo poo described above in his pro studio. Last time I checked David Hobby was just a freelancer. Kodo Zoku posted:Everything I need to know I learned from Stobist... When did DarthJeebus say he wanted battery power? The kit he posted ran off of a wall socket. So by including the $300 battery pack with the AB, you're either assuming he wants to be a strobist like you, or trying to make the AB seem too expensive. Either way, intentionally or not, you're misleading him.  poopinmymouth posted:That, AND, just like a lot of people advise to start with a 50mm and learn how you like to shoot, start with one light till you learn the basics and how you like to shoot.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 00:42 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Well the angle is unflattering for one. You should be higher up, or have her head angled down. Also it looks like your lighting is 1:1 ratio. I'd drop the bottom light to a 1:2 ratio or even 1:4 for a bit more volume. You can even move the top one a bit to one side, and the bottom a bit to the other side. Right now it's very, very flat, and not in a good way. The shadow above her head from the bottom light is also very distracting. I have the camera dead level so no angling effect from the lens...on purpose, because of the nature of the photo (supposed to be that dead on, no creativity allowed shot). She's also supposed to be looking dead ahead. Thanks for the ratio tips. That's the hardest part for me, finding a way to get the ratio correct without one of the lights creating harsh shadows. How about the shadows by her hand? When I dropped the ratio on the bottom light, those became much more obvious. I'll get a few more chances on these kinds of shots, so I'll try both the ratio and angling the lights. The effect will have to be subtle to be acceptable for this kind of shot.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 00:45 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:I have the camera dead level so no angling effect from the lens...on purpose, because of the nature of the photo (supposed to be that dead on, no creativity allowed shot). She's also supposed to be looking dead ahead. It's not about being creative, it's the fact that no one other than midgets will ever see a person from this angle. It needs to be head height so that the face is recognizable the way 99% of people will see it 99% of the time.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 00:50 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:It's not about being creative, it's the fact that no one other than midgets will ever see a person from this angle. It needs to be head height so that the face is recognizable the way 99% of people will see it 99% of the time. The shot has to be whole body (feet to top of head). If I put the camera at eye level, what impact does this have in exaggerating some parts of the subject? Either I have to move further back to get the feet in frame, or I have to angle down. Suggestion?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 00:56 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:15 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I'm not going to lie, I've considered (more seriously than I should) getting the vagabond 2 battery pack and puting it in a backpack, then handholding the ab 400/small softbox for some stuff. I don't want to move down to a hotshoe flash for event stuff, I love the setup I have too much http://www.sportsshooter.com/news_story.html?id=1820 I lugged about 20lbs worth of photo crap up to the top of a mountain ridge on Oahu so I guess if you are reasonably fit you could carry around a Vag II for an extended period of time on level ground.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2009 01:18 |
|
