DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> AlienBees ?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 36 of 36, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/10/2007 04:04:40 PM · #26
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Someone over at FM was asking about one-light setups.

I thought that it might be a good read for the OP

I think thats a good read for anyone, I made it through 20 pages, makes want to get a bee and reflectors right now. Tons of info and set ups and examples. Thanks for the link
 07/10/2007 07:33:53 PM · #27
I read this at the strobist:

[quote]But umbrellas are not the only way to make a hard light softer. You can use walls and ceilings for that, too.[/quote]

Couldn't you use an extra large embroidery hoop with a piece of white cloth (like a sheet) in it and get about the same effect?

I have a Quantum strobe with light stand, battery pack, radio remote, etc on lay-away at the camera shop.
07/10/2007 08:36:35 PM · #28
What are you planning to shoot?

I use Paterson Stellar strobes (300ws kit (2 lights, stands, etc is $500) - about $100-150 less than the similarly powered AB800 kit).

Use for wedding lighting, like in a church for formals? I would recomend 600ws units, shoot through umbrellas and TALL stands. 2 should do it. AB1600s or similar (600ws) 300ws can be a bit weak in a bigger, darker church.

Portrait lighting - AB800/300ws is fine with a good modeling light. You can always use more power, but for 1 to 4 people this is fine. How many? Depends...high key on white paper using 2 large softboxes? 2. 3 is teh minimum I would recomend - main, hair and either fill or kicker and yuu can get a large reflector panel to use a fill.

It took me a while to pony up the money for large softboxes and then I had to get stronger stands, and now I'm figting droopy flash heads from teh weight, but man are they nice to work with. Large is 2x4 feet or bigger if you have the room, or a 6 foot octobox is nice, but HUGE.

Stong modeling lights are nice as you can shoot using them (with proper WB of course) with the softboxes as well. Nice light to work with. The AB comes with a 100watt and the Paterson a 150, but that may depend on what model/power you get.

None of the 'kit' stands are worth much, stability wise. Very portable though.

Either will work with the AB Vagabond (battery pack).
 07/10/2007 08:40:22 PM · #29
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


Sure, it's also possible to use the built in wireless setup that allows TTL control, but that gets really pricey.

A single AB400 kit costs about $300. Which, when you consider the huge increase in power, the faster recycle time and not having to depend on AA's, is really getting a lot of bang for not a lot of bucks.


I agree with most of what you say, BUT AA power is handy - it doesn't need to be plugged in. Less to worry about, less to set up and carry, etc.

Faster recycle compared to? My sigma 500 and Metz 54 are faster most of the time (compared to my studio strobes) and I got the new 580EX2 and it can recycle amazingly fast even when pushed hard. The studio strobbes are LOTS more powerful - I've come to believe the on-camera units are 50-75ws units more or less.

eTTL may be more costly, but you don't need a flash meter so it sort of balances out.

So much depends on your preferences and needs. I've started taking 2 studio strobes to every wedding for the church formals. Last saturday the previous wedding hadn't left when we got there and that photog used on-camera direct flash for the formals. To each his own. My second shooter uses multiple quantum units (bare bulb) for a lot of work - i learned that and still like it, but it's not a cheap way to go as each light/battery can run $1000.

Message edited by author 2007-07-10 20:44:04.
 07/10/2007 09:19:57 PM · #30
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


Sure, it's also possible to use the built in wireless setup that allows TTL control, but that gets really pricey.

A single AB400 kit costs about $300. Which, when you consider the huge increase in power, the faster recycle time and not having to depend on AA's, is really getting a lot of bang for not a lot of bucks.


I agree with most of what you say, BUT AA power is handy - it doesn't need to be plugged in. Less to worry about, less to set up and carry, etc.

Faster recycle compared to? My sigma 500 and Metz 54 are faster most of the time (compared to my studio strobes) and I got the new 580EX2 and it can recycle amazingly fast even when pushed hard. The studio strobbes are LOTS more powerful - I've come to believe the on-camera units are 50-75ws units more or less.

eTTL may be more costly, but you don't need a flash meter so it sort of balances out.

So much depends on your preferences and needs. I've started taking 2 studio strobes to every wedding for the church formals. Last saturday the previous wedding hadn't left when we got there and that photog used on-camera direct flash for the formals. To each his own. My second shooter uses multiple quantum units (bare bulb) for a lot of work - i learned that and still like it, but it's not a cheap way to go as each light/battery can run $1000.


It doesn't take a lot of AA batteries to pay for an extension cord or a generator rental. Not to mention the annoyed look on your client's face as th lag between flashes grows and grows until you have to waste their time fiddling about changing batteries while they watch.

Low priced strobes do suffer from longer recycle times as one way they're designed to cost less is by using less robust charging circuits. I can set my pack on low power (which is much much brighter than any shoe mount flash) and shoot at 3fps until the camera buffer is full.

The ST-E2 transmitter costs more than a light meter and the E-TTL solution will cost about as much as a full blown strobe setup light for light and you'd still be handicapped by low power.
 07/11/2007 09:23:22 AM · #31
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
[quote=Spazmo99]

I agree with most of what you say, BUT AA power is handy - it doesn't need to be plugged in. Less to worry about, less to set up and carry, etc.

So much depends on your preferences and needs. I've started taking 2 studio strobes to every wedding for the church formals. Last saturday the previous wedding hadn't left when we got there and that photog used on-camera direct flash for the formals. To each his own. My second shooter uses multiple quantum units (bare bulb) for a lot of work - i learned that and still like it, but it's not a cheap way to go as each light/battery can run $1000.


It doesn't take a lot of AA batteries to pay for an extension cord or a generator rental.


It's all about the right setup for the job.
Having both as an option is best.
Knowing light will tell you when to choose which.
Studio strobes are great if you've got the time etc. but you mention generators(!) and lugging multiple strobes etc.
That's great if you are on location for an extended period of time like a wedding etc. but for on-the-go versatility, portability, minimum set-up time the "strobist" route can definitely be a better solution.
It all depends on the situation.
You pick the right tool for the particular task.
It's also a low cost way to really learn a ton about lighting which will enable you to make better decisions about what you need come "real" light buying time.

Message edited by author 2007-07-11 09:23:51.
 07/11/2007 09:51:26 AM · #32
Originally posted by rswank:
Studio strobes are great if you've got the time etc. but you mention generators(!) and lugging multiple strobes etc.


I only mention that because people look at the cost of a lighting system and disregard the incremental cost of batteries.

As far as strobes taking more time, I don't see how there's much difference. They're just bigger, but the setup process is just about the same.
 07/11/2007 11:07:33 AM · #33
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I only mention that because people look at the cost of a lighting system and disregard the incremental cost of batteries.



The way I solved this is I purchased bunch or rechargeble AAs and 15 min charger. Total cost was about $70. I later found out that I could have saved $10-20 by buying at BJs.
07/11/2007 11:46:41 AM · #34
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I only mention that because people look at the cost of a lighting system and disregard the incremental cost of batteries.



The way I solved this is I purchased bunch or rechargeble AAs and 15 min charger. Total cost was about $70. I later found out that I could have saved $10-20 by buying at BJs.


Which would make the cost of one strobe roughly equivalent to the cost of one flash setup ala strobist. Yet the strobe will still be many stops more powerful.
 07/11/2007 11:53:44 AM · #35
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I only mention that because people look at the cost of a lighting system and disregard the incremental cost of batteries.



The way I solved this is I purchased bunch or rechargeble AAs and 15 min charger. Total cost was about $70. I later found out that I could have saved $10-20 by buying at BJs.


Which would make the cost of one strobe roughly equivalent to the cost of one flash setup ala strobist. Yet the strobe will still be many stops more powerful.


Why the debate of only one or the other?
Surely different tools for different purposes.
Wanna buy and lug an expensive power pack up a mountain for an affect that can be achieved by a single off camera flash unit?
Wanna use only flash units in a studio?
I'm just saying don't discount the strobist route entirely.
 07/11/2007 12:01:56 PM · #36
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I only mention that because people look at the cost of a lighting system and disregard the incremental cost of batteries.



The way I solved this is I purchased bunch or rechargeble AAs and 15 min charger. Total cost was about $70. I later found out that I could have saved $10-20 by buying at BJs.


Which would make the cost of one strobe roughly equivalent to the cost of one flash setup ala strobist. Yet the strobe will still be many stops more powerful.


Why the debate of only one or the other?
Surely different tools for different purposes.
Wanna buy and lug an expensive power pack up a mountain for an affect that can be achieved by a single off camera flash unit?
Wanna use only flash units in a studio?
I'm just saying don't discount the strobist route entirely.


Oh heck, I don't know.

I think that by now we've covered, probably more than once, the pros and cons of each.

I don't discount the strobist approach, it certainly has its advantages same with studio strobes.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 05:49:23 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 05:49:23 PM EDT.