Strobe and electronic flash

[Daniel_OB]

In my portrait studio I use electronic flashes with guide number around 40. Mostly I use F1.4 to F2.8, and rare case F4, for 35 mm, and equivalents for 6x7cm.
I can use large tracing paper in front of electric flash to produce soft light, and I can use umbrellas too. There is also a way to preview the scene before flash is fired. With electronic flash I can go up to 1/25,000 sec (in theory up to 1/40,000 sec) which I need sometimes and strobe cannot make it.
Strobe offers 4 to 6 extra lens openings which I do not need.

What is advantage to have strobe in this case.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Strobes have power,recycle speed and accecorries.

Trying sticking your flash into a large softbox.

But if you are having no problem with the flashes no reason to change.

 

[Chan Tran]

Except for the modeling light which you said you don't need, I can't really think of the advantage going for strobe as you shoot only with f/1.4 to f/2.8.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The terms "electronic flash" and "strobe" are synonymous in English for photographic purposes, so I assume you mean small portable electronic flash (strobe) units as compared with larger studio flash or studio strobe units.

If you can do what you want with small flash units, there's no reason not to use them. If you need your kit to be very portable, a few Vivitar 283's or something similar might be just the right thing.

Aside from having more power, studio strobes usually are more flexible in that they accept a wider range of reflectors and diffusers and come with the right connectors to attach to standard light stands. They also recycle quickly, though you can usually improve the recycle time of small flash units by using an AC adapter.

You might also find that the quality of the light is different, just because of the shape of the flashtube and the way that it is positioned in the reflector or diffuser. With a softbox, for instance, most of the light from a small flash is projected directly through the diffuser, and a small amount is reflected back into the box before it is diffused through the front diffuser, so it isn't that different from just using a cloth scrim. When you have a bare studio flash tube in a softbox, more of the light comes out of the side of the tubes and is reflected off the sides of the box before going through the diffuser on the front, so the effect will be somewhat softer.

 

[ben-s]

Daniel;
It sounds like you are in a similar situation to me.
I hankered after a set of studio flashes for ages, and eventually borrowed some.
They are nice for some things, but by no means essential, nor universally useful.

After that, I bought a pair of hotshoe brolly adapters, which allow a brolly and stand to be used with a hotshoe flash.
I'm using a Canon 430EX and a Metz 60CT4 at the moment, which work well, but the metz is a bit big, and needs to be bolted on to the adapter, as it's not a hotshoe flash.
This system works really well for me at the moment. It's versatile, light and will go anywhere.

I'd highly recommend reading strobist (http://strobist.blogspot.com/)
It has a heavy digital focus, but the techniques there can be applied to film also.
It really does a good job of showing what can be accomplished with basic kit.


I'm trying to decide whether to splurge on a second 430EX, a 580EX, or a Vivitar 285HV.
I'm leaning towards the 285HV at the moment, with a view to a 580EX in the future.

 

[Nick Zentena]

After that, I bought a pair of hotshoe brolly adapters, which allow a brolly and stand to be used with a hotshoe flash.
I'm using a Canon 430EX and a Metz 60CT4 at the moment, which work well, but the metz is a bit big, and needs to be bolted on to the adapter, as it's not a hotshoe flash.

Mount the Metz 60 to a tripod. Screw the hotshoe adapter to the Metz camera screw. I think that'll work.

 

[ben-s]

Mount the Metz 60 to a tripod. Screw the hotshoe adapter to the Metz camera screw. I think that'll work.

Unfortunately that doesn't work, as there's no way to attach a brolly directly to the Metz. - and even if there was, the flash head would be way off centre to the brolly

The way I set it up is to flip the metz camera bracket upside down, and pass a 1/4" thumbscrew through the 3/8" hole into a 1/4" tapped hole in the hotshoe/brolly bracket.
That gets the flash head somewhere near the middle of the brolly.

It works pretty well, but the main problem is the physical size of the whole metz caboodle - you have to find somewhere to put the big generator pack.

 

[Mike Wilde]

Metz generator pack= extra stability.

I have an extra cloth loop on one end of mine, that I made up from some old pack webbing andn replaced the offical steel ring when it broke off. I use this loop over the screw that holds the light stand leg clamp. That way when you move the light stand everything moves as a unit. It also adds more weight at the bottom of the light stand. When I put the umbrella and CT head on top, a bit more weight on the bottom never hurts.

 

[ben-s]

I have an extra cloth loop on one end of mine, that I made up from some old pack webbing andn replaced the offical steel ring when it broke off. I use this loop over the screw that holds the light stand leg clamp. That way when you move the light stand everything moves as a unit. It also adds more weight at the bottom of the light stand. When I put the umbrella and CT head on top, a bit more weight on the bottom never hurts.

Good idea. I might try that.
I have on occasion gaffer taped the generator to the bottom of the wheeled stands we use at work (normally for video lights)

A while back, I did a shoot on a rather wet beach, and keeping the generator out of the sand and water was really fun...

 

[epatsellis]

I use 2-Metz 60CT2's when I shoot wedding formals and such, using these brackets: http://www.tallyns.com/tpp/amazing/itemdesc.asp?CartId={76D7A0AF-A647-EVEREST4F9B-BF93-47A41E932DE0}&ic=MB%2D3%2D45&eq=&Tp=
you can easily attach them to light stands.

erie

 

[ben-s]

I use 2-Metz 60CT2's when I shoot wedding formals and such, using these brackets: http://www.tallyns.com/tpp/amazing/itemdesc.asp?CartId={76D7A0AF-A647-EVEREST4F9B-BF93-47A41E932DE0}&ic=MB%2D3%2D45&eq=&Tp=
you can easily attach them to light stands.

erie

I can't get at anything through that link, it just says that the cart ID has expired.
Any chance of the part number or description please? - Whatever it is sounds interesting.
Thanks

 

[epatsellis]

sorry ben, try going to tallyns website, then brackets and clamps on the left hand menu, then tallyn series brackets, the ones I use are the MB-3-45 multibracket, expensive, but work like a champ. (note that the 45 and 60 series use the same quick release clamp.)


erie

 

[ben-s]

OK, found it.
Thanks

 

[Roger Hicks]

The terms "electronic flash" and "strobe" are synonymous in English for photographic purposes....

Dear David,

Or at least, in American. Some English-speaking photographers retain the (useful) difference between repetitive stroboscopic flash and singe electronoc discharge flash.

But I agree that the English usage is (alas) losing ground. What can American-speakers use to describe true strobes, after all?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Dear David,

Or at least, in American. Some English-speaking photographers retain the (useful) difference between repetitive stroboscopic flash and singe electronoc discharge flash.

But I agree that the English usage is (alas) losing ground. What can American-speakers use to describe true strobes, after all?

Cheers,

Roger

I think Americans still call repetitive stroboscopic flash units "strobes" or "strobe lights," and when one's flash develops a short so that it discharges repeatedly it's called "strobing," but that's not the distinction that the original poster was making between small shoe-mount flash units and large studio flash units.

Best,

David

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think Americans still call repetitive stroboscopic flash units "strobes" or "strobe lights," and when one's flash develops a short so that it discharges repeatedly it's called "strobing," but that's not the distinction that the original poster was making between small shoe-mount flash units and large studio flash units.

Best,

David

Dear David,

Of course you are right, and I did not wish to seem combative; but if the distinction could be restored, the language(s) would be the richer.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Sirius Glass]

Dear David,

Of course you are right, and I did not wish to seem combative; but if the distinction could be restored, the language(s) would be the richer.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

Then you and I agree that Hollywood and thre rest of the movie industry should drop the pretense that an actress should be called an actor.

Steve

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

Then you and I agree that Hollywood and thre rest of the movie industry should drop the pretense that an actress should be called an actor.

Steve

Dear Steve,

A very interesting one, in that in traditional grammar 'the male embraces the female'. For reasons I've never understood the feminine is often taken as derogatory: the word 'Jewess' has become taboo in my lifetime, though 'Jew' is still acceptable, but (for example) 'authoress' never gained much currency and 'poetess' even less. No-one confuses gods and godesses, on the other hand (perhaps they're afraid of thunderbolts).

Often, though not invariably, you can tell the sex of an 'actor' from either the personal pronoun ('she is an actor') or quite often from the name, though I am constantly surprised when a hitherto unknown but vaguely masculine-sounding name turns out to belong to an actress. At least in this sense it's less confusing than 'strobe'.

So yes, although I'd completely agree with you, I suspect we may be fighting a losing battle.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

I think Americans still call repetitive stroboscopic flash units "strobes" or "strobe lights," and when one's flash develops a short so that it discharges repeatedly it's called "strobing," but that's not the distinction that the original poster was making between small shoe-mount flash units and large studio flash units.

Best,

David

Right-o, David. Different countries use slightly different terms. That's why in England you cross the road, whereas in the U.S. you cross the street.

What's more, —not to brawl with my pal Roger— there is no such language as ,"American", but "American-English". One can cite all the sources and references to the contrary they want, the term is incorrect (IMH —but insistent— O). Otherwise, I guess the different vernacular versions of English would carry a different name for each country where it is spoken as a major language: in India it would be known as "Indian", in the Philippines, "Filipino", "Dutch", in Holland .. etc. !

Best,

Christopher

.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Right-o, David. Different countries use slightly different terms. That's why in England you cross the road, whereas in the U.S. you cross the street.

Actually, a street is a paved road in a city. Example in London within the city walls are streets as in Regent Street, Cockspur Street or Carnaby Street. Whereas a road is [originally] an unpaved throughfare out side of a city. Example in London outside the city walls is Brompton Road.

Same useage for the US.

Steve

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Actually, a street is a paved road in a city. Example in London within the city walls are streets as in Regent Street, Cockspur Street or Carnaby Street. Whereas a road is [originally] an unpaved throughfare out side of a city. Example in London outside the city walls is Brompton Road.

Same useage for the US.

Steve

Hi Steve,

We're talking about two different things: I'm talking about the terms for crossing streets. You're talking about the terms for streets and roads themselves(even there, I'm not sure that your definitions can be taken as absolutes: for example, isn't Abbey Road in London proper? I don't know...).

The Brits I know (and information you can easily find on the differences between British English and American English) often say "cross the road" where we Americans would say cross the street.

But, don't believe me! (nor that book you're reading!) . . . ask a real, live Brit, yourself! They're fun to talk ..especially with that funny accent*

Best,

Christopher

*OK, OK, I know .. it's we Americans who have the accent! Brings to mind Shaw's quote that, “the U.S. and England are two countries divided by a common language" !

.