Strobist

Editor's note: There are enough questions coming in via the comments that I am prepping a slave-related Q&A for later this week. If you have a question that has not yet been asked, please get it into the comments ASAP. Thanks.
__________

In part one, we talked about the differences in optical slaves, and why internal slaves were usually better solutions.

In this post, we'll look at the practical side -- how do you get the best performance out of your slaves?
__________


#$!%! Thing Didn't Fire!

Slaves are a little like radio remotes in that they are not 100% perfect and reliable. (But the good ones are damn close.)

And unless I am working in an environment alongside other photographers, I almost always use a hard cord or a PocketWizard on one flash (which becomes a "master" flash) and optically slave the others. It's generally very reliable, and a fast way to work.

So, which flash to use as a master and which to slave? The answer might be different than you think.


Power vs. Angle of Coverage

Say you have a key light firing at 1/2 power, and three more accents set at 1/64th power. Try using your most powerful flash as a master and slaving the accent lights. If that main light is gonna be bouncing off of all sorts of things, so much the better.

But if you are running flashes at only modest power levels, you might try using the flash with the widest beam spread as the master flash. Often, beam spread trumps power level as the reason for a flash to be the master. The reason is simple -- the other flashes have to be able to see the light from the master to fire.

For example:


In this instance I would use the umbrella fill flash as a master, even though it is gonna be at a lower power than the key light. Reason being, the umbrella light will go out in all directions and the other flashes will see it better than if I master sync'd the key light at bottom right.

On the other hand, if I used one of the other flashes as a master, the umbrella flash might not fire. This could happen either because of the limited beam spread of the other flashes, or because the umbrella itself was shading this flash and reducing the intensity of the light from the master flash before it reached the slave.


The More, The Merrier

Realistically, with as many flashes in a photo as in the above example, they will usually all fire no matter what.


As long as at least one slaved flash can see the master, it will likely set off at least one other slaved flash, and so on. This cascading effect means that it is actually easier to fire off of a room full of 50 slaved flashes than it is to fire, say, two.

In the Usual Suspects -style photo above (more here) there was a 2-stop down umbrella right at the camera, acting as an on-axis fill. Those slaved, low-powered accent lights were fired by the umbrella. And if they weren't, one of the many other accent lights took care of the problem for us.


Be Like McNally

Knowing how to choose your master/slave flashes correctly is a good skill to have for those of you who use Nikon CLS or Canon eTTL syncing methods, too.

One trick Joe uses for complicated setups is to use an off-camera TTL cord and hang that master flash out somewhere where all of the remote/slave flashes can better see it. There is usually a spot that will get the job done -- and often that spot is not right on top of your camera.

But you can think that way for manual-flash slave setups, too.



For instance, if you had one PW and several slaved flashes that were gonna be used as gridded key lights, you might remote-/hard-sync a background/scener/rim light (upper left) that all of the gridded flashes' slaves could see. Problem solved.

And this is an instance where the slaved flashes' rotating heads would come in handy, too. You can point the heads at your subjects and rotate the bodies of the flashes so the slaves can see the master flash. (That is why near-360-degree rotation on flash heads is so useful.)


Hiding the Sun

Sometimes the problem is that the ambient light level is very bright, causing difficulty for the slave. It has to see that pulse of light to fire your flash. And if the slave eye can actually see the sun, too, that's a lot of competition.



Shading your flash eye with a little gaffer's tape will make a big difference in the range of your slaves in daylight. Just make sure you shade the sun while leaving a clean line of sight to the master flash.


It's Firing By Itself

If your slave is so sensitive it is getting false fires (assuming it is not a total piece of crap that would false fire inside of a dark closet) that is an easy problem to fix, too.

You can "dumb down" a slave by partially covering the eye with tape until the offending false positive trigger is canceled but your master will still fire the slave. With "super" and "ultra" slaves, you might have to do this more often than you would expect. No big mystery -- they are just that good.


What's Your Favorite Slave Tip?

Do you have a favorite slave tip I left out? Do you know a great slave that doesn't break the bank?

Hit us with a comment (and/or a URL to a picture that proves how good your "giant killer" cheap slave is) in the comments.

New: Strobist Index

First off, this is a long-overdue post. It arguably could have been in Lighting 101. But this week (four-plus years later) we'll be looking at choosing and using optical slaves.

In this post, how to figure out which kind is right for you.
__________


Only Two Things Matter

Slaves are not particularly complicated. They see a light pulse, and then they complete a circuit -- hopefully firing your second flash in the process.

There are only two variables that should concern you -- connectivity and sensitivity. (Okay, price, maybe. But as you'll see later, it is better to wait a little bit and buy a little further up the scale if you possibly can.)


Connectivity

How sensitive a slave is doesn't mean squat if it will not connect to your flash. Typical connectors are HH (meaning US-style household plug), 1/4" plug, 1/8" (3.5mm) plug, PC plug and specialized connectors such as the weird Vivitar thingie.

There are hot-shoe based slaves, too, but you will always pay a premium for them. Which is why the very first rule of slaves is to:


ALWAYS TRY TO CHOOSE FLASHES WITH BUILT-IN SLAVES.


Sorry for the all caps, but I do not even consider a flash unless it has a built-in slave. But if your flash hasn't got one, you'll have to choose a slave that will connect to it. And God help you if you have a series of flashes with different connectors. With decent slaves starting at north of $50, you can see how the necessary duplication could get expensive fast.

If you have 1/4" and 1/8" jacks on your flashes, you can solve the compatibility problem with a cheap adapter. Ditto getting to an HH jack, if you have a couple bucks and some soldering skills. But the most important point is that you should be considering the down-the-road costs when you are buying flashes. And buying a flash without a built-in slave or an external PC jack makes life complicated for you later.

Long story short, there is a lot of elegance in a flash system with a jack you can sync with low-cost cords and a built-in slave. That was the thinking behind the LP160 -- to duplicate the bigger monoblocs' ease of syncing.


Sensitivity

Once you have your slave hooked up to your flash, you are halfway home. Now you have to get it to actually fire.

This is where lots of people pay the newb tax -- when they buy a no-name eBay slave that technically fits their flash but fires about 30% of the time. (But hey! They're $10!)

There are two kinds of slave circuits -- passive and powered. The above eBay specials are almost always passive. And when they do work it will typically be in an indoor situation -- low ambient, lots of bounce surfaces, and for good measure you should probably throw in some pretty high master flash energy levels, too.

Passive slaves will typically advertise a range of ~100 feet. Take that with a grain of salt. It is calculated under ideal circumstances with powerful master flashes.

To be fair, there are decent passive slave designs. But they typically will be for short-range, bright flash situations. My advice is to save a little longer and opt for a powered design.

Trust me, you really want a powered slave. You'd think they'd require batteries -- and they used to. But a while back someone got the bright idea to use the voltage from the flash's trigger circuit to power the slave. Presto, no batts needed.

The range on a powered slave can be very impressive. You'll see advertised ranged of ~600 feet and up. Grain of salt there, too. But you can compare apples to apples from the same manufacturers to see which slaves they consider to be their best.

Take a look at this slave product range from Wein, who has a good reputation for high quality slaves. You'll see a wide range of connectors and sensitivities available.

How do you tell which ones are powered slaves, and thus more sensitive?

You'll see prefixes like "super" and "ultra" being batted about. And the prices will rise, too.

And "super" and "ultra" are not far from the truth. If you have problems with these slaves, it is more likely to be from false positives (random fires). These are likely not random at all, but rather triggers from environmental light pulses -- the sun gleaming off of a passing car, perhaps.

But the takeaway is that an expensive slave is usually worth the money.


Built-In is Better

Here is a photo from a ways back, illustrating just how good the built-in slave is on a Nikon SB-800 when in SU-4 mode.

Built-in slaves (more so the modern ones as opposed to the ones from 20 years ago) are almost always "super slaves." And the internal connectors are all soldered, which is better than any flavor of jack.

That photo was taken in the middle of the day. That flash was triggered by the internal slave seeing the on-camera speedlight. Impressive.

So if you are buying flashes, stick with those models with a well-regarded built-in slave. You'll save money in the long run, and you add a lot of versatility to your lighting schemes.

We'll talk about that -- and how to get the most out of your slave's range and sensitivity -- in Pt. 2.

New: Strobist Index

I know what you are thinking -- this snoot looks a little familiar, perhaps?

Well, it is -- and it isn't.

Actually, better lemme explain.
__________


Okay, long story short -- and without going into too much detail:

Honl creates a line of snoots and gobos. Sells them independently. Signs with ExpoImaging as distributors. A falling out occurs. Honl back to independent. ExpoImaging releases new line of Rogue FlashBenders.

So now you know some backstory. And yeah, there is a certain level of familiarity involved. But they are different enough to make them of interest, so here goes.


Mounting Tension



There are a few differences between the Rogue FlashBenders and the Honl stuff. But for me the special sauce is in the way they designed their mounting system.

The speed strap is elasticized, and built into the snoot itself. It attaches with a nice (and consistent) amount of tension. The edges of the snoot attach with velcro, like so:



Advantages: Quick mounting, and the strap is always with the mod.

Disadvantages: You're essentially gonna pay for a strap with each mod. Whereas you might be able to get by with, say, four mods and two straps otherwise.

Horses for courses. And depending on what configuration you end up with, one system might be priced better for you than the other.

One area in which Honl snoots do best the Rogues is in reversibility. Being able to choose which surface you want on the inside of a snoot means that you can alter the internal reflectance of the snoot -- and thus the quickness of the fall-off at the edge of the beam.

Since the FlashBenders have a white interior, you are always going to get a wide feather to the edge of the snoot's beam. You can see it what I am talking about in the photo directly above.

I make my homemade cardboard snoots reversible from end to end (black interiors one end, white on the other) just for that reason.


Get Bent

Conversely, the FlashBenders do add a feature over the Honl models in that they have an internal set of thick, diagonal wires. This allows a kind of "twisty-tie" capability in that you can lock it into just about any shape you want if using it as a bounce card.

Personally, I do very little (if any) bounce card-type lighting. But I know a number of you do shoot that way (receptions, parties, etc.) and it would seem to be more versatile for those folks.

The wires do add weight. Not an issue for just one or two units, but if you have a stack you could tell. Feels kinda like one of the X-Ray proof film bags back in the day. (They were, of course only X-ray proof until the opaque image they gave on the machine caused the operator to crank the volume up until your film glowed in the dark.)

There is a large and small version of the snoot / bouncer / bendy thing. There is also a straight bounce card/gobo version, which does have a black insert or a white backing for versatility.

More info / prices, etc., at ExpoImaging.

New: Strobist Index

Here's a quick little tip for the next time you find yourself in need of a little impromptu on-axis fill and you do not have a ring light: Use a direct speedlight instead.

It's small, hand-holdable -- and very powerful. The trick is getting it off of top of the camera, and even closer to the lens.
__________


On-Camera vs. On-Axis

The problem with on-camera flash is that the flash is mounted in possibly the very worst position possible. It's too close to the lens to offer any real shape, and yet far enough away that it leaves gnarly shadows under the chin of your subject.

But if you get it right next to the lens, everything changes. That's why your point & shoot sometimes makes some pretty glam-looking direct flash photos. Because the flash is about an inch from the lens.

Compare that to a typical DSLR, where the direct flash head can be ~6 inches from the lens and you see the difference. Pop-up flashes on DSLRs are better than shoe-mounted flashes for this reason, too (example here.) But right next to the lens -- as in touching it -- is best.

The trick is knowing where to position it (i.e., where on the clock face) around the lens. Here is how I hold it when filling another light, and why:



I put it on the exact opposite side as the direction of my key, and right next to the lens. I usually just hand-hold it, but I am actually thinking of building a little bracket that would do the same thing and allow me to position the flash on either side of the lens.

Here is the thinking: The fill is gonna be a couple stops down, so the tiny (almost non-existent) shadows created would appear on the side of the subject getting the key light. So the key light (at full exposure) will easily erase them.

The shot at top (of opera singer Rolando Sanz) is filled in this way. And it's almost hard to tell the fill is there, until you see the photo without it:



You can make it as subtle as you want, obviously. I usually just do it by eye -- dial it in until I like it. Take this fill down another stop and the photo would look completely different. Not better or worse -- just different.


Power to Burn

Say you are working outside with a big mono (or some ganged speedlights) as a key. You are underexposing the ambient by a good stop, with the sun coming from behind. That key is lighting your subject from one side, but leaving pitch black shadows on the other side.

A speedlight, fired direct, only has to fill your subject to about two stops down -- three, if you're a badass and/or if your publication medium can handle the subtlety. That is not asking a whole lot out of a small flash. Firing direct (zoomed, even,) any speedlight can handle that in full sun out to a distance of a dozen feet or more. Go ahead -- try it.

But that little kiss of light in the key light's shadows will give you depth and detail and more control over your subject. And right up against the camera, the sliver of a shadow it would have created will be wiped away by the key light.


Syncing Options

When shooting inside, I usually remote the key and slave the fill. Having a speedlight with a built-in slave is a godsend for this. But if you are outside, you may well need to remote them both depending on the position of the lights.

If your key light has a slave, it is simpler yet. Use an off-camera cord (as shown in the diagram above) for the fill light and slave the key. As a rule, I generally do not buy a flash unless it has a built-in slave -- a good one -- just for this flexibility. (More on slaves coming next week.)

So the next time you are shooting an off-camera flash-against-sunset photo, stick a little direct flash right up against that lens on the opposite side, dial it down two or three stops, and see if that doesn't give you a more nuanced look -- no fancy modifiers needed, and with power to burn.

New: Strobist Index

Multi-speedlight brackets are a great way to gang up your small flashes when you need a little extra oomph, as in when trying to overpower the sun for a portrait.

Why not just buy a monobloc, you ask? Well, for one thing, it is easy to gang up small flashes. But it is a little more difficult to hack a monobloc into key, fill and background lights. Different folks, different workflows.

There are a few options for ganging speedlights into a more powerful, single light. And they have all been pretty much the same -- until now.
__________


Ahead of the Curve

Unlike most multi-flash brackets, the Lastolite TriFlash Sync includes three hot shoes, as compared to the typical cold-shoe versions.

And that 1/8" (3.5mm) jack you see out front? That is parallel-wired to all three, effectively giving you the minijack sync option that frees you from the PC Cord Mafia.

Which means you can use an audio patch cord as a sync cable. A mono cord is supplied, but my stereo cords also worked with a PocketWizard to sync three speedlights at once.

You can also even mount the PW on the center hot shoe and have it securely fastened if you just are firing two strobes. Lastolite includes a cold-shoe adapter for that, lest your PW get locked into an endless relay-mode feedback loop from triggering itself.


Built Like a Tank

With three SB-800s connected as shown, the bracket/flash combo feels like one solid unit. The shoes all have both clamping rails and locking pin holes for Nikon and Canon models.

The clamps are really solid, which is important when you consider how much money could potentially be attached to this thing. I'd hang this one out over water without the usual ball bungee wrapped around the shoes for insurance. The tilt mechanism also has locking teeth, and is quite solid.

(Please note that the above photos are of a beta unit, and the final version may have slight differences.)


Radio Not Required

Obviously, you can go with a 1/8" hard sync cord into the bracket. But if you are, say, filling with an on-axis flash you can trigger a multi-speedlight key light with the built-in slave.

The slave is intelligent, and battery-powered -- which can be good or bad, depending on your perspective.

First off, batt-powered slaves are generally more sensitive, which is good. And you can set it to ignore from one to four pre-flashes, if you are into combining manual and TTL.

But that also means that the slave is battery dependent (in this case, a button cell) so if you are going to be using the slave you have to remember to turn the thing off every time.

It's a non-issue for me as the PW input is convenient and immune from syncing the flashes from other nearby photographers. And if I needed to use a slave I'd probably opt for the version built into my flashes -- the SU-4 mode on the SB-800s is as good as it gets.

That way, I also have three slave eyes pointing in different directions. So the best-aimed slave would trigger, and that flash would easily set the other two off. But most flashes do not have built-in slaves, and the Triflash Sync is inspired thinking for a multi-flash bracket.

They are not yet available, but are coming soon. If you are in the UK you'll get them first (est. in a couple weeks) as they are UK-made and distributed by Lastolite. And they should be trickling out to other countries via the normal Lastolite outlets in fairly short order after that.

Price is expected to be ~$149 in the US. And who knows, UK might even get a relative break this time. Or at least, not have to pay the usual ~1.5x price...

New: Strobist Index

It's been a while since we got a chance to chat with any dead artists, and Edward Hopper was actually in the news this month.

So I caught up with him last week at (appropriately) a bar in Fell's Point in Baltimore to chat about the use of light in his most famous work.
__________


Strobist: First of all, Mr. Hopper, I'll confess to being a big fan. You have long been an influence on my lighting. And also for a lot of other photographers, from the look of things.

Hopper: Don't mention it. Really. Influence is one thing, but some of the "homages" are another thing altogether. And please, call me Edward.



Strobist: Thanks. I don't want to waste any time before getting to the painting you are most associated with: "Nighthawks" (1942). It has become a cultural touchstone.

Hopper: Well, that's one way of putting it…



[Ed. Note: Click on the pic to open it bigger in a different window for reference.]

Strobist: So, here's the picture. And I think it is damn-near perfect, if you don't mind my saying. Was that available light?

Hopper: Oh, no -- it was lit.


Strobist: So … it was also staged?

Hopper: Yep. The redhead is from Model Mayhem. $150 (and a CD) for three hours.


Strobist: And the guys?

Hopper: Locals. They cost me a coupla beers. We did it after hours. We paid the barkeep a C-note to stay late and pose, too. Pretty bootstrapped, really. Fortunately, we did it before that stupid $300 NYC shooting permit crap. Ridiculous.


Strobist: Indeed. So it is lit, then. Mind if I give it a go?

Hopper: Be my guest.


Strobist: Okay, so everyone has front light, and that can only be coming from one place. Direct light up in the ceiling?

Hopper: Close. It's actually a tight bounce. Direct might have looked better, but it would have been hard to hide the bare reflection in the coffee machines. With a near-surface bounce, we mostly tone down the reflection in the top dome. I actually considered pulling one of the coffee machines and using that window divider to hide the light's reflection on the other machine.


Strobist: Ah, and that would have given you an easy way to use a bare light.

Hopper: Yep, but what all-nite joint wouldn't have caf and decaf?


Strobist: Exactly. Thus the bounce?

Hopper: Yep. And that was the only interior light we used. It was an Elinchrom Ranger Quadra, by the way. It kicks out 400 watt-seconds, but was small enough to gaffer-tape the whole damn thing to the ceiling fixture. With a Skyport remote, we could control the power remotely, too. But we ended up running full power. The bounce ate up a lot of light.


Strobist: So, you say that's the only interior light. Were there more?

Hopper: Yes, there is one more strobe -- another Ranger Quadra.


Strobist: Where is it?

Hopper: You tell me.


Strobist: Well, shadows on the right side of the far window point to the light, so I know it is somewhere around that corner.

Hopper: Keep going…


Strobist: Any Photoshop tricks?

Hopper: Nope.


Strobist: Then it has to be behind the back right wall, on a very high stand ... and a boom?

Hopper: Yep, thus the tiny little Quadra. Head just weighs a few ounces. You can stick it way out there. Stand goes up behind the back right wall, boom comes out to the left, light is hanging out over the street and hidden by the wall over the window. That give me a hair light on Red, and separation on the guy sitting next to her.


Strobist: Is that important?

Hopper: Oh, yeah. Look at the other guy. See how he gets lost against the background on his camera left side?


Strobist: Yep.

Hopper: No separation light on him. That kinda makes him secondary to the couple as a subject. That back light is catching the barkeep's face a little, too. But we gobo'd it to keep it from hitting the area across the street directly behind the bar patrons. We left that nice and dark.


Strobist: Sweet. And everything else is ambient?

Hopper: Yeah, about 3-4 stops down. We dragged the shutter for eight seconds -- always bring a good tripod when lighting at night. Had the interior lights off in the bar, so no ghosting issues if they sat still. Ambient-wise, the bar is actually darker than the street outside. But the strobes reverse that.


Strobist: So, do you just wing this kind of stuff, or do you comp it out?

Hopper: Oh, no. I plan everything. Even did a run-thru a few nights before.


Strobist: Really? So you just lay it out on a cocktail napkin, McNally style?

Hopper: Used to, not any more. Now we do nice charcoals, on acid-free paper.


Strobist: Wait, what?

Hopper: Let me explain. Case in point -- see this?



Strobist: Yeah. Nice, I guess.

Hopper: I guess? That baby went for $352,000 at Christie's.


Strobist: The rough draft? Are you kidding?

Hopper: No kidding.


Strobist: Wow. I use my iPhone to make lighting diagrams.

Hopper: Aren't you cool.


Strobist: Apparently, not. Let's get back to the idea of the homage.

Hopper: You mean, ripoff?



Strobist: Whatever. So, here is "Boulevard of Broken Dreams II," (1984) by Gottfried Helnwein. Kinda cool, really -- James Dean, Humphrey Bogart, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis. It's cool because they all died before their time, and here they are in a bar together at night.

Hopper: Oh c'mon. It's a watercolor on cardboard, for pete's sake.


Strobist: Yeah, but…

Hopper: Really? You like it? REALLY?


Strobist: I have another small confession -- for the longest while, I thought the Broken Dreams painting was the original one.

Hopper: Are you friggin' kidding me? Look. I really gotta go, okay?


Strobist: But...

Hopper: Bye.


Strobist: Well, in that case…




__________


Abruptly ended fictional interview aside, this painting was in the news this month. After much painstaking research, it was determined that the bar in Nighthawks -- real tho Hopper made it -- probably never actually existed.

You can read more about that, starting here.

And if you enjoy beers with dead guys, you can read our earlier conversations with Rembrandt and Vermeer.

New: Strobist Index

We get lot of smoke photography in the Strobist Flickr Group, but this is the first time one has come close to getting bounced for not being family-friendly.

On second thought, I don't see anything unusual about it at all.

(Nope, nothing.)

Click the pic to get to the Flickr page, where Strobist reader Shafik Saba includes a brief run-thru on how he shot this purely random smoke photo.

-30-

New: Strobist Index

Today, I'm going just a little bit out on a limb, making the first-ever detailed recommendations from this site. And we'll be jumping right into the deep end, into the crowded and somewhat murky waters of remote syncing devices.

Recommendations for three budgets -- and why -- after the jump.
__________


Guidelines

First, this stuff is not carved in stone. It is one person's opinion, based largely on personal experience. Think of it as if we were sitting at a bar, you were about to buy some remotes and you asked me for some friendly advice.

And since you asked me, you would of course be buying the beer. Because as long as I am imagining scenarios, I may as well imagine a free drink out of it. Or two.

Second (and much like the nice, foreign beer I would be enjoying) you don't ride first class on a third class budget. That said, all of these recommended sync methods get triple aces in one key area -- and that is sync reliability.

That's kind of a no-brainer for a desirable quality in a remote, and suffice to say that not all remotes are reliable. That is a deal breaker for just about any photographer -- or should be, at least.

The second quality is longevity. Which is to say that the remote system you buy this year should be expandable next year, and hopefully for several years after that. Additionally, there are other issues (sync speed, battery availability, etc.) But reliability and longevity are the biggies.


High End

For those of you looking to build a long-term system with an unmatched reliability record (and who are willing to reach deep into your pockets to do so) the following should come as no surprise. I recommend the PocketWizard Plus II Transceiver.

(Pocket Wizard Photo by Krazewerks)


Why? Several reasons.

I have used them (and their predecessors) for the majority of my professional life. And I have counted on them day in and day out, for thousands upon thousands of off-camera flash exposures.

And as for range, suffice to say that they give me all of the range I need. And I tend to push the envelope even on PW's occasionally.


Case in point, this air-to-ground shoot of a police helicopter at night. You can see more on that in a two-part, On Assignment post starting here. And it is a great example of what a PW can do when the boundaries are pushed.

PocketWizard or no, you gotta remember that radio is not perfect. Which is to say that there will be environments in which, for some reason, a given wireless remote will not work. The folks who are really serious about lighting sports arenas, for example, will usually opt for hard-corded sync options when possible just for this reason.

But I will say that I have rarely met the environment that will best a PocketWizard. If one won't fire, it generally comes down to a bad battery or a bad cord between the PW receiver and the flash. And I have very occasionally had issues when they were being used illegally in other countries with different RF spectrum allocations in, um, atypical environments.

But, back to the batteries, they run on AA's.

Dear God, why can't all remotes run on AA's? I always have spare AA's in my bag, and you could probably get AA's on the moon if you ran low. Sadly, that is not the case with many remotes. And it is yet another reason why I love my PWs.

So, why PW+ II's and not the new Flex/Mini platform? Coupla reasons, for now.

One, I am not a TTL guy. So I do not need most of the extra features. Two, the Flex/Mini platform is only out for one camera brand. But that is changing pretty soon. (They are pretty complex, and it's basically like a run-thru of the Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain" to integrate a Flex/Mini into a camera brand.

That said, I am a beta tester of the upcoming Nikon model and I am very excited. In the end, I will probably get one or two.

That is as compared to my 12 copies of various standard PW's. (I have +'s, +II's, standards, etc.)

With a Flex unit (runs on AA's, so Flex will get my nod over the Mini) on camera, I can get the most important upgrade -- a higher full-sync speed. And it will transmit that capability to all of my older PW's being used as receivers, thus making every single flash I have nearly twice as powerful. Relatively speaking, at least.

But, that's down the road. Short version: When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight: Fedex.

When it absolutely has to sync: PocketWizard. And the PW+ II's are the gold standard.


Midrange

This is where it gets a little complex, because there are variables that will determine what may be a better choice for you. Plus, by talking you through those variables, I could probably stretch this into another beer.

In my experience (and that of friends) I would not hesitate to recommend any of the following, midrange remotes: RadioPopper JrX, Paul Buff CyberSyncs or Elinchrom Skyports.

For those of you using Einsteins, for instance, PCB's CyberSyncs offer significant advantages -- the receivers even drop right into sockets in the top of the Einsteins. A specialized transmitter allows you pretty much full remote access to the flash's controls. Ditto with the Skyports and many Elinchrom lights -- including the punch-above-their-weight Ranger Quadras.

For generic, manual shooters either one will work well. But you may well also consider the RadioPopper JrX's. Since you are on a budget if you have read this far, I would suggest you skip the studio version and go straight for the bare-bones JrX. It's a great, albeit imperfect, little system.

So what's the difference between the PW's and the midrange stuff? Coupla things.

First, the range will not quite be the same. And while you may never need to sync something 1500' away and/or way up in the air, that extra range equals extra robustness at lesser distances.

Other little quirks, too. Just niggling stuff, really. But worth considering, as it may guide you to different models in this range.

First, batteries. CyberSyncs take AA's on the receivers, but button cells on the transmitters. Skyports take button cells, too.

RP JrX's take CR123a batts -- more capacity than a button cell, but hard to find in a pinch. If you go JrX, then I strongly suggest going with rechargeable NiMH CR123s. You can read more here, and my rechargeables have performed flawlessly.

Other stuff: Design, oddly enough. The Skyports have a swivel antenna that is small enough to scare me a little. (Purely psychological, maybe, as I have not heard reports of them breaking off.)

And the CyberSyncs have raised buttons (including the on/off switch, on older models) that you need to mod to keep from being pushed accidentally in your bag. You also have to mod them if you want a lanyard. Else your sync cord becomes your lanyard (not good.)


But What About the Brand X Units?

I hear you already: What about Phottix / Yong Nuo / Gadget Infinity / eBay / etc. remotes?

To be sure, there are some very good remotes being made by the above companies -- at some very good prices, too.

Just a couple of years ago, the so-called "eBay remotes" were somewhat of a joke. A "newb tax," as it were, to be paid by the light of wallet. You buy them, they kinda work, you stay into it, you move up to a better remote within a few months. So you buy twice.

Not any more. The various oriental manufacturers are coming on strong. None are perfect, but many are very good -- and very cheap. But among their flaws is a deal breaker for me at this point, and the reason I would not recommend them to most people.

All of the remotes recommend above have either a demonstrated or presumed commitment to backwards compatibility. Which is to say that next year's remotes will work with last year's remotes. One of the problems with the constant improvements of the various oriental brands is that they have also been (for the most part) jerking us around with model-year-to-model-year incompatibility.

By comparison, I have 15-year old PWs in my bag that I can trigger with my beta Flex units. Even the RP's JrX system was designed to be compatible with their previous, higher-end system. That is, I think, because they are photographers themselves and know how important the continuity thing is. Choosing remotes that will let you painlessly expand your bag in a few years is essentially making a bet on your future commitment.

I expect that the Chinese/etc. remote manufacturers will get this soon enough. And when they do, I will be happy to recommend them providing they have good performance. And to any manufacturer reading this, if you are dedicated to backwards compatibility you should proclaim it on your product page and give yourself an advantage over your competitors.


Bargain Basement

Hello, poor-but-honest starving artists who have read this far. So, you may be long on talent and sincerity, but are presently short on cash. What, for you?

I do not recommend a remote at all. I recommend going hard core, or, rather hard cord.

Specifically, get on the 1/8" sync bus with a set of Universal Translators (only one if you are using, say, an LP160, or AlienBees, for example, as they already rock the 1/8" jack.

So, if you spend less than a sawbuck and get your camera onto the 1/8" standard with a Universal Translator, you do some pretty cool things for yourself. First, you are kinda making a down payment on future remotes, which also work on the 1/8" jack system. In fact, all of the ones I recommend above do just that. That is to say, you are standardizing on a cheap sync cord right from the get-go.

Second, you are into a system that is for the most part rock-solid. RF interference? No prob. Batteries? Don't need 'em.

Only issues are with range (limited to your sync cord length) and multi flash (I recommend flashes with built-in slaves.) You cord one flash, slave the others, and you are set. You can also move to a remote relatively painlessly later, starting with just two units. Slave your other flashes until you wallet recovers and then grab some more receivers.

And the cord itself? That's the beauty of the 1/8" system.

It gets you out of the grips of the PC Cord Mafia and into the promised land of nearly free, 1/8" sync cords. Seriously, 25-foot sync cord for $1.94, anyone?

You want backups, and reliability? Get five at a time at that price. (Cheaper, actually, if you get 5.) But still, create a little strain relief by rubber banding your sync cords to the light stand to keep them from jiggling and they will last far longer.

And you will always have a backup in the future when your fancy remotes crap out on you because you are shooting too close to Area 51 or something.

But that non-syncing PW may not be your biggest problem problem at that point. I'd concentrate more on the very serious gentlemen in the rapidly approaching green jeep with the .50-cal machine gun mounted up top.
__________


Dang, that was a pretty long post for a Thursday. (I like to coast into the weekend with a short post and a single malt…)

And as I said, this is my opinion alone -- worth what it cost ya. And naturally I got everything wrong, as I am sure many of you are about to tell me in the comments.

But that's okay. And did I mention earlier that I had switched to single malts? Nothing too pricey -- let's call it a 12-year old Jura. (I was educated this spring in Edinburgh.)

But they have been going on your tab for the last 15 minutes.

New: Strobist Index

A suburban community nestled between Baltimore and Washington DC, Howard County is not exactly known for its exotic location backdrops for shoots. But if you are a little creative, you can usually scrounge something up.

Such was the case for a recent HCAC shoot of classical guitarist Mark Edwards, for which we borrowed access to the courtyard of the Franciscan Friars in Ellicott City, MD.
__________


The Friars are caretakers of an actual relic -- AKA, a part of a human body -- a practice which is common in Europe but much less so in the United States. The Franciscan Friars' Shrine of St. Anthony houses a relic from the saint of the same name.

The relic looks about as you would expect a centuries-old piece of human flesh to look, but the building itself is beautiful. It was designed after a similar structure in Assisi, Italy and is a great location, considering the relative homogeneity of the surrounding areas.

My standard M.O. for getting access to a neat area for a shoot is to call well in advance, compliment the heck out of the location, and be very flexible and deferential to their schedule.

I generally do not promise so beforehand, but afterwards I almost always email some images of the location itself and give the owners the rights to use them on the website, etc.

Some will chafe at the fact that I am giving away the use of photos, but I am also getting a great location for free. It's a win/win, as we are both essentially getting something for next to nothing.

It's also great karma. Thinking every transaction has to be of the monetary kind -- not-so-great karma.


Expose for The Sky, Light for The Subject

For the shot at top I completely underexposed the shaded, interior hallway around Mark, dropping the exposure to just below that of the full-daylight sky and sunlit background.

That means going to a 250th of a second shutter speed right off the bat, to give myself a friendly aperture against which to light. The shutter speed gives you the aperture (adjust your aperture until you get the background tones you want). Then you match that exposure with your flash and you are good to go.

For these photos I was using one light -- a Profoto B600 battery-powered flash in a Paul Buff PLM. I love the 64" version. I cannot imagine the big one, as the middle-sized one I use is humongous.

It is similar in theory to the 60" Photek Softlighter II (which I used here) but significantly more efficient due to its parabolic design.

Both of those light mods offer wonderful value for money -- truly a poor man's Octa, IMO. They both have some advantages over the other, but for less than $100 it is hard to go wrong either way. I am using both of them quite a bit lately, and hope to have a good comparison post up before long.


Give Yourself an Edge

So, why even use a PLM or Softlighter? Why not just a Zack Arias Special 60" umbrella?

Simple -- I love what that optional front panel does for me. It gives me a light source that has a flat front, and that means it has an edge you can feather.

Sometimes you want a big, bulbous light source to flood the area. And for that an umbrella is great. But the PLM, for instance can give you a beautiful, efficient, soft light source with an edge that you can use.


Take this shot, for example. See how the light falls off as it heads up the wall? That makes Mark pop a little more, and it is very difficult to do with an umbrella. You could flag it, I guess. But that would involve another stand, a big gobo and some clamps.

The outcropping on the wall also falls off a little differently than does the recessed wall in the back. I like that variety and texture.


Here is a side view of the light, and you can really see how the light falls off at the edges with the PLM/front diffusor combo.

For reference, Mark would be at the outcropping portion of the wall at left, and I would be shooting from camera right.

I nearly always shoot setup shots, and I usually learn something new from them. (And yes, I did use that gorgeous hallway in some of the other shots.)

In this case, you can see the hard tilt I have applied to the PLM. It's such a big light source that I still get a nice wrap on the vertical axis on Mark, but I have a nice fall-off edge against which to work, too.

In this setup shot you can see an even harder vertical fall-off on the camera right side than the one on the left. The light is actually pointed away from the wall, but is still hitting near the bottom. And you can really see the edge happening as it goes up.

The other thing you can see is how cool it looks to drop a big light source into the middle of a frame. Say you were shooting a photo from the point of view of this setup shot, looking back into the hallway. The light would bathe down on the subject and fall off as it came towards you, making for a very 3-D look in that space.

If you needed detail in the shadows of the subject, it would be an easy fill with some ~2-stop down on-axis light. If you did not want to fill the walls at the edge of the frame, you could flag the fill light on the sides or use a gridded, on-camera flash to fill.

You may remember Mark from a previous post in which we blew out the background with a little high-speed, focal plane sync. That photo (here) was shot at this exact location and direction, yet looks totally different because the shallow depth of field melts the background detail away.

But we spent most of the time working with that big, 64-inch PLM. Paul Buff is still trying to keep up with demand -- and with good reason. They are efficient, gorgeous and amazing value for $77.90, including the front diffusor.

New: Strobist Index

Lee and Patrick over at Fstoppers have put together a video that pretty much proves that good lighting can squeeze great results out of the most mediocre of cameras.

Their sensor of choice for the proof of concept? An iPhone 3gs.

Yep.
__________


(Lots more lighting BTS stuff over at Fstoppers.com)

-30-

New: Strobist Index

We pre-empt our regularly scheduled programming today, as we do pretty much any time there is a good BTS video from the likes of Greg Heisler.

(Ditto you too, Dan Winters, or Peter Yang. Seriously, whip up a good BTS and the joint is all yours for the day.)

For a little sense of chronological scale, this video lasts about as long as Heisler takes to shoot Jeter. For an SI Sportsman of the Year cover, no less.

Quick takeaway: Hiding a face light on-axis of a bigger strip light (sorry for that misleading headline, ladies) for "a little more oomph" on the face. "Oomph" being one of those light qualities Heisler learned about when studying with the Great Masters.

And on the Profoto strip lights -- if you have to ask, you can't afford them. They are not strip boxes. They are strip lights. Completely different animal. They are apparently made in Sweden by elves using pixie dust or something even more expensive.

I am working on a DIY version for speedlights, made out of polished, inside-out Diet Mtn. Dew cans.
__________


(More Heisler vids on the Profoto site.)

-30-

New: Strobist Index

UPDATE: Just answered many Q's in the comments. -DH
__________


It's simple math. If you are shooting outside in the sun and limited to 1/250th of a second sync (or worse) you are are going to be shooting through a tiny hole as your aperture. Even if you crank your ISO down as low as it will go, you'd better like that background. Because you are going to see it in pretty sharp focus.

Or maybe not. In addition to high-speed sync, there are a few ways to bleed some aperture from your exposure settings in full sun.

Three blurry choices, inside.
__________


Dedicated speedlights and high-speed sync is one way to get rid of your aperture problems. But because of the inefficiency of focal-plane flash (lots of energy falling on mostly closed shutter curtains) your flash power is greatly reduced.

You can add extra flashes (cue McNally's Tree of Woe) or you can do everything at f/16 or so and then bleed some aperture with a neutral density filter.

Couple of things: First, you put the filter on the lens, and not the flash. And second, there are a few routes to take, with some being better than others.

The upside about ND filters is that you can use them with any dumb flash. Anything you flash can do balancing with the sun at f/16 it can also do at f/2.8, or even f/1.4 with ND filters. Big flashes, small flashes - doesn't matter. You are simply taking aperture limitations out of play.

Example:

You could wrap three speedlights around an athlete for a very cool mid-day portrait. All hard lights -- high front key, and two back/side rims. At a 250th of a sec, you'll need to light your subject to ~f/16 or so (depending on the ISO) to balance the sun. More if you want to overpower it.

That takes a lot of light. But close-in, bare speedlights can absolutely do it. And any decent monobloc or pack-and-head could do it without breaking a sweat.

The problem is your backdrop -- maybe you want to blow it out. Maybe it looks like crap at f/16. Maybe your sensor dust is starting to look like a scene from Jurassic Park.

The important thing to know is that the flash/ambient relationship is not going to change. You need the power to compete with the sun. But now we want to bleed some aperture out and lose the background focus.

To take your exposure from 1/250th at f/16 to 1/250th at f/2.8, you will need to place five stops worth of neutral density filter over your lens. This will maintain the flash-to-ambient balance, while knocking the light down.

(If you put it on your flash, you would be giving yourself big problems -- unless maybe your flash has a thermonuclear setting or something. And you still would not be able to get your aperture down.)

So, what kind of ND filters to consider?

As always, there are choices. And some of those choices depend on your wallet. Here are three.


The Budget Option

You can get a typical-brand ND filter for about $50 or less, which is very tempting. This is the route you will probably try first -- I did. Unfortunately, it was a learning experience. Here's why.

I bought a Tiffen 77mm ND filter that cut three stops of light. Cheap, fit my lenses and solved the problem, right?

Wrong.

The sharpness was not what I had hoped it would be. But there was also a color shift -- it was a kind of weird warm that sucked the color out of the sky, which was exactly what I would typically be using as a backdrop with the NDs.

Granted, it is very difficult to make an optically pure ND filter of that strength, and maybe $50 was a pipe dream. They got the "density" part down. The "neutral," not so much.

But on top of that, it was like my first microwave oven. It had two settings -- off, and nuclear. What I found is that I needed variability to solve different problems. Sometimes 3 stops was okay. Often I needed more -- or less.

In the end, it went into a drawer. $50 lesson learned.


The Pay-As-You-Go Plan



Being younger and wiser, my friend JoeyL skipped the dime store version and went for a set of Lee 4" polyester ND filters. The good news -- they are both sharp and cheap -- on an absolute basis.

The bad news, they are basically a consumable. They will scratch, and you will have to replace them.

This is the way the Hollywood folks roll when making movies. You'll need a 4" gel holder (probably "pro shade" combo) and a filter for every ND value you use. If you always work in full sun and want to go to f/2.8, this might be a good option for you. But you will use up the filters and have to replace them.

If you need variability in your ND filters, it could get to be expensive pretty quickly and do so in an ongoing way. That said, Joey seems very happy with the 4" gels and his photos of course look amazing.

He also uses it for wide-open movies with his Canon 7D. Above, he is shooting footage from inside a seaplane over Dubai earlier this year.

Pretty intimidating looking setup, if you ask me. Very Cecil B. DeMille.

If you want to use ND sparingly (and you are very careful by nature) the 4" polyester filters can be a very reasonable option that will give you very good results. You'll probably want to buy one that will get you from your full-sun aperture to your wide-open aperture. Then maybe a second which will do the same on a cloudy day.

This will give you the option on a sunny day (with the second, less powerful ND filter) to go to only f/5.6 if you want moderate depth of field.


The Buy-It-Once Plan

If you want optical quality, durability and continuously variable densities, there is one option. And it is expensive.

The Singh-Ray Vari-ND is the ne plus ultra of ND filters. It gives you a "dial-in" setting of anywhere from two to eight stops of neutral density -- that is actually neutral. And it is sharp, too.

Singh-Ray filters have an outstanding reputation, for which one pays dearly. For example, the 77mm Vari-ND filter is $340. As far as I can tell, it is two high-quality polarizers that used together form somewhat of a "dimmer switch" for light.

But it is a thing of beauty, both in operation and performance. After paying my $50 Newb Tax above, I at least was able to experiment enough to know that I wanted to have the ability to mix flash with any level of sunlight, work at any aperture and with any piece of flash gear. That's what the Vari-ND let's me do.

I'll probably catch some crap in the comments for such a pricey filter, but I tried the cheap version and that was $50 for nothing. To me, that's more expensive.

And yeah, I have given the old Visa card a pretty good run over the last year. But I shot for 20 years with someone else's gear, and I wanted the next 20 to be with that of my choosing.

And frankly, it feels very good to finally be done with major purchases for the foreseeable future.
__________


Walk-Thru

The photo up top, of my daughter Em, was when I first started using it. Just some learning time with no pressure.

It is a straightforward shot, done mid-afternoon with a single Profoto head in a 60" Photek Softlighter II. But the neutral density adds a third variable to your normal f-stop and shutter speed duo. Here's how I keep from getting too confused by that.

First, I choose my shutter speed. If I am pushing the limits of my lights (i.e., maybe when using speedlights) I would choose 1/250th. In this case, I had plenty of power so I started at 1/125th. This was simply to give me the ability to alter the ambient background levels with my shutter speed while shooting without hitting my sync limit. And in the end, I shot this frame with a darker background at a 1/250th. Nice to have the option.

Next, I close down my aperture until I get a background that is the exposure tone that I want. It will be very much more in focus than the final shot will be.

Now adjust the power on the flash to light the subject. In this case, Em was in the shade of a building (background in full sun) so I was adding light to a nice, dark starting point.

The flash and ambient relationship now are set. Placing the Vari-ND on your lens will allow you to remove as much light as you want from the photo, and you compensate by opening up the aperture. Rather than go wide open to f/1.4, I stopped at f/1.6 because I know my 85 is sharper there.

I went pretty wide open here, but I could have shot at any aperture. And I absolutely love that I can do that now.

The idea of crisp, multi-hard light wraps mixed with squishy backgrounds at high noon gets me a little tingly. Which is much needed, after the numbing effect of buying a filter that cost as much as a car payment.
__________

So, do you use ND filters with flash? If so, what kind? What has worked for you? What has left you wanting?

Sound off in the comments.

New: Strobist Index

The entire staff here at Strobist International Headquarters are quite pleased (and more than a little surprised) to have been included in TIME Magazine's 25 Best Blogs of 2010.

If you are just stumbling in from that article, welcome! This is no ordinary photo blog -- you can see what we are all about, here.

-30-

New: Strobist Index

UPDATE: Scott from Weekly Photo Tips made a video, lest anyone was unsure of the way to mount the hacked grid (after the jump.)
__________


Regular readers of this site will know I am a big fan of the Honl 1/8-inch grid. It is built like a tank, and designed to fit onto nearly any speedlight made.

The first day it arrived at my house (one of the first production samples in the country, as I would later find out) Dave Honl asked to me to test it out and see if it was tough enough.

So I ran over it with my car…
__________


If memory serves, it was the exact grid pictured above. And to be fair, I have do drive a Scion XA, which is a pretty small car. And I ran over it pretty slowly. But still.

And he did say to test it for toughness. I emailed him back and said, "Yeah, it's pretty tough."

(That'll teach Dave to use me as a beta tester.)

These days I use it so much that it merited a little head-scratching, to see if I could make it faster to slap onto a flash. Dave's velcro mount was made for versatility across lots of different flashes, but I carry half a dozen identical SB-800s with me. So I am more interested in quick-change speed and ease of use.

To that end, my cheapo speed hack:

Rather than the velcro and speed strap mount, I modded mine to go on with an elastic band -- just looped through the grid. I went to my local Target store and got a pack of "Goody Ouchless Comfort Fit Headwraps" for about $2.00 for 8.

Cut into a strip, they fit perfectly through the 1/8" grid patterns -- and of course would also fit the 1/4" grids. I was gonna give the rest of them to my daughter, but they look pretty useful for other black mini bungee-related hacks. Sorry, Em.

In this case, it makes it a near-instant mount whenever I want to restrict the beam of my SB's with the even falloff that only a grid can give you. (That's the main difference between a grid and a snoot.)

And the mod is no knock on the grid, either. I tend to only mod things I use frequently. (And even then, only after finding DIY changes I can make to speed and/or ease my workflow.)


UPDATE: Here's a very explanatory video, from Scott at Weekly Photo Tips!


__________


Got any cool mods of oft-mentioned small flash gear which may be helpful to other readers? Hit us in the comments with your favorite hacks.

New: Strobist Index

We are gonna get our Lighting Geek on today, and take a moment to understand two measurements which are very important to know if you are shopping for flashes: t.5 and t.1.

When measuring the length of a flash pulse, the duo of t.5 and t.1 times are the industry standard metrics. Understanding those numbers -- and the difference between them -- can help you make better purchasing decisions on your lighting gear.
__________


What are t.5 and t.1 Times?

The first thing you should know is that the numbers are not the same thing and are not interchangeable. If one manufacturer is giving you a t.5 number and the other a t.1, you should not compare them as equals.

At the t.5 time, the flash pulse has dropped down to 50% of its peak. At t.1, the flash has dropped 90% from its peak. Essentially, they are giving you a feel for the shape of the back slope of the pulse.

So of course, flash manufacturers would prefer you think in terms of the t.5 measurement. But the t.1 measurement is much more of a "all-in" number, even though it is not perfect either.


Take this graphical representation of a typical flash pulse, which is from a good explanation of t.5 and t.1 times on Paul Buff's website.

In it, he also gets into the differences between regular flashes and IGBT-controlled flashes, the latter being the special sauce in an Einstein unit. (IGBT circuits just chop off the pulse on the back side when the power has reached its required level, which obviously makes for very flattering t.5 and t.1 times.)

The graph shown here is that of a variable voltage controlled flash, at full power. The vertical axis represents energy intensity and the horizontal axis represents time.

So, what does this graph tell us?

First, you can see that the flash pulse rises very quickly and it decays more slowly, over time. This is typical.

Second, the t.5 (1/2000 sec) time is way less than half of the amount of time needed for t.1 (1/666 sec). This is because of the slower decay on the back side of the pulse.

Why not just list the time it takes for an entire pulse? Look at that curve as it heads to 100% discharge, which is what you'd need. It's getting pretty flat, right? That's a lot of time needed to get to 100%. Pretty much nobody would look good if they gave you that measurement.

And frankly, that last bit of energy does not make a lot of difference in your exposure, either. PW even cheats the edges of the pulse a little bit to give you higher sync times with the new TT5/TT1 units. Lots of time savings there with very little energy loss.

Okay, back to t.5/t.1 times.

Obviously, a t.5 time is going to be way more flattering. First, because your flash pulse is not even near finished yet, and second because the graph of that energy shows that it attacks faster than it decays.

And speaking of energy, the total area under the curve (seen here in yellow) represents the total energy given out by the flash up to any one point in time, marking possibly the first time basic calculus rears its head for us photogs.

Why should you care about pulse times?

Well, certainly if you are an action shooter, you'll want as short a t.1 time as possible -- at the power level you will most likely be shooting at. Short pulse time = action-stopping power. If you do not shoot action with flash, maybe you are more concerned about color consistency, and you can skip the pulse-length worries.

But for some really slow flashes, that t.1 time may even put a roof on your ability to sync at your normal sync speed, let alone stop action. If only 75% of that full-power pulse is being delivered in a 250th of a sec, your camera really cannot sync that particular flash at a 250th, now can it?

That can be a deal breaker. Which is why you should study those numbers and understand what you are getting, depending on how you will use it.

And fortunately, the numbers usually get better the further you walk down the power scale. So this is more of a problem for you watt-second hogs who like to hang out at full output while shooting action photos.


Compromises, Compromises

Here is your formula:

1. Fast Pulse
2. Color Correctness / Consistency
3. Reasonable Price

Pick any two.

Which is to say that you can have color consistency and fast pulses at the same time, but just be prepared to dig deep into your wallet.

Fortunately, speedlights do not really bump up against these physical restrictions. At full power, most ~60ws speedlights will deliver a color consistent full pop in about t.5=1/1000th and t.1=1/500th of a sec. And it gets better from there very quickly as you drop the power level. So the above compromises are mostly for the people considering big lights.

And that is one of the cool things about the Einsteins -- that you can have low prices and fast pops or low prices and color consistency, depending on the mode you select. Just not all three at once.

A pretty good compromise, if you are a schizophrenic photog who goes for fast action on some days and tight color tolerances on others.

But no matter what your needs, make sure you understand the t.1/t.5 numbers that are being thrown around, and how they relate to you. And don't be snowed by a deceptively pretty t.5, either -- it is the t.1 that counts.
__________


Read more:

:: SportsShooter on Flash Duration ::
:: Paul C. Buff on Flash Duration ::

New: Strobist Index

While I was planning for last month's UK trip, I crowdsourced ideas for subjects for my Shoot the Bloggers* (Hey, it's a Start) project. Reader Nick Jones suggested Sian Meades, pictured above.

Who was I to object?

So that necessitated a little side trip to Greenwich, for a quickie Prime Meridian shoot…
__________


Sian (or "Siany," as she is known to her friends) founded and edits the blog Domestic Sluttery. Which, I might add, is probably not about what you think despite the wonderful name. Okay maybe it is, depending on what you are thinking.

On our shoot day it was hazy sun, and we were mid afternoon. Oh, joy. Given that, my first thought is to control my plentiful-but-crappy ambient. So we shot several setups in a portico leading into the Greenwich Market. Shade is your friend.

My favorite of the bunch was the B&W seen up top. And even though we were in the shade, I wanted something with a sunny edge (i.e., hard light) as if taken in the nicer light of late afternoon.

And by controlling the contrast range, I could create a file that would allow me to crank up tonal range a little more when converting the color photo to a B&W with a blown-out look. But I would still keep detail everywhere.

More and more, I am liking hard light with a controlled tonal range. I think it gives me the best of both worlds -- lighting that highlights the individuality of peoples' faces, but with controlled shadow depths that keeps it legible and flattering.

I used what is quickly becoming my go-to combo for people -- a LumiQuest SB-III as a key with an Orbis ring fill.

The duo gives me both edge and control. At ~6 feet away (in this case, from hard camera left and up a little bit) the SB-III is downright hard. Used in close it can be both soft and sculpty, if "sculpty" is a word, which my text editor is telling me it is not.

Here, we are probably 3-4 stops over the ambient (made easier by the deep shade) so this one is pretty much all flash. The key is exposed correctly, with the ring fill coming in at ~1.5 stops below. Edgy, but detail everywhere.



Here, you can see the relative angles and distances. Siany, who shot this pic during her frequent tweeting sessions with her iPhone between shoots, would have been at camera right in this shot. The ring axis points to her location, right about on the right edge of the frame. (She was against that wall.)

I, on the other hand, am apparently trying to figure out how to adjust the height of a compact light stand -- totally exuding that "room temperature IQ" vibe. Confidence inspiring, ain't it?

But it does give you a look at our environment, and how we are totally recasting the ugly light to get the look we want. Little bit of gear, lot of control -- and we were, after all, lighting and shooting in the greater London area without any kind permit whatsoever. I have no idea what you Brits are complaining about. Piece o' cake.

Siany being a blogger, she of course wrote about the experience of being shot and included some extra photos. They must've gone well, as she got propositioned in the comments.

That's good, right? Still hasn't happened to me yet.


Serendipity FTW

As it turns out, our shoot was mere yards from a place where my friend Drew Gardner had insisted I visit when in London -- the Old Royal Naval College.


In particular, he said to visit the Painted Hall and it certainly did not disappoint. Remarkably, I was pulling a ThinkTank roller (with my camera and lighting gear inside) and plopped it down right in the hall and proceeded to make photos with my Canon G11.

I would have thought the unattended bags would have brought out at least a bomb disposal robot and a water canon. Guess I do not look lean and hungry enough to be a terrorist -- not even in London, the photography paranoia capital of the world.

__________

* Shoot the Bloggers is an ongoing project featuring portraits of my fellow bloggers.

Why? Because a) they are interesting people, b) no one else is doing it, and c) some of them will actually sit for me. You can see more STB portraits here and here.

New: Strobist Index

I am assuming that's what the Mile-High Club means anyway -- I have heard the term bandied about with great affection.

Anyway, if you are near Denver and think you might be interested in a day of Light conversation, the details are here.

Oh, and speaking of workshops, McNally is reprising the Dobbs Ferry One-Day series this summer. Thinking I should book a seat and heckle him from the audience this time.

(*cough* USE MANUAL! *cough*)

-30-

New: Strobist Index

UPDATED: Steve from Phottix (CEO) checks in with some answers to our questions, inside...
__________

With the announcement of the "Atlas," Hong Kong -based Phottix has just gone from an unremarkable, third-party accessory manufacturer to a company who is raising serious eyebrows.

This upcoming PW-compatible remote is getting lots of attention -- and with good reason.

Details inside.
__________


Charles Verghese, a friend from the UAE (and the person from whom I nicked these product photos -- thanks, Charles!) has been testing an early set and has been surprised and impressed at the results.




Highlights

• They are transceivers, like the PW II+'s
• AA batts.
• They are PW-compatible (chan. 1-4 only)
• Metal foot, w/big screw collar
• Built-in 1/4x20 mount (!)
• Built-in female hot shoe (!!)
• Range seems to be at least that of the PWs. (Caveat: see below)


Question Marks

• Can it sync clean at a 250th? Unknown.
• Charles was getting some (repeatable) phantom pops.
• There are also reports of some hinky stuff in burst mode.
• No US compatibility yet -- only CE. (Said to be coming, tho.)
• Not so fast: Am told that if that extra range is coming from a chip that is not limited (to make it legal on emissions) US models probably will not meet FCC specs.
• Price: Not yet known, but street price in Singapore dollars translates to USD ~$115.


UPDATE: Phottix checks in w/answers:
• The Phantom triggering problem and "hinky" burst mode have been corrected - the reviews were based on pre-production models, not the final model.

• Sync speed is 1/250 on cameras that will sync that fast (my Canon 40D will sync with the Atlas at 1/250 no problem).

• The FCC models will be FCC approved - and should be on the street by late July - early August. I will be testing these models next week.

• Regarding the patent - we feel our product does not violate present patents.

So, muddy enough for you?

Maybe. But interesting, too.

Charles has lots more info in a detailed, three-part series in which he tested them pretty thoroughly. It begins here.

New: Strobist Index

While we are on the subject of the Photek Softlighter, I thought it fitting to run a BTS video of Annie Leibovitz shooting Keith Richards in a hotel room for Louis Vuitton with that same light mod.

She uses the Softlighter a lot -- along with a voice-activated light stand that damn-well better know what she is thinking before she says is out loud. (I'd put money on that last part.)

Notes on the video, and the final photo, after the jump.
__________


First 20 secs: Propping the set. Really wish we had more of this.

0:34 Richards to Annie: "Where do you want it, baby?" (These two go way back -- Annie toured with The Stones in '81 and produced an amazing set of photos.)

0:39 She doesn't tell him how to sit, she shows him how and where to sit. Only has so much time -- and attention span -- to work with. I'll give her this: Every time I watch her, she is remarkably efficient. With respect to subjects' time, at least. Money, not so much.

0:42 "Just show me where to park the carcass." True fact: Jim Fixx, author of The classic The Complete Book of Running, died at age 52 of a heart attack following his daily run. Keith Richards, 66 as of this writing and with way heavier mileage, is still kicking.

0:50 Keith is already running the shoot, or so he probably thinks. Move and pose. Move and pose.

1:12 Of course, every one of those move and pose shots will look contrived. Time for a change-up -- change the venue. "I'm just gonna try one more thing…"

1:20 Now move him back to where you really want him.

1:47 Stroke the ego: "This is so great. This is so great. This is so beautiful…"

2:00 Maybe we could change one little thing. "You don't have to pose … when you are playing the guitar, when you are doing that … it's the best stuff." Indeed.

2:20 And out. Kisses all around. Applause -- always applause. Just like on your shoots, right? Dollars to donuts there is an Assistant in Charge of Starting the Applause. Without fail.

2:25 Rembrant is thus conjugated into an adjective. Style points to Keith.

2:29 Pause it here. Here is a pic with no post. Cell phone video of a monitor, sure. But still, you can see pretty much what is done in camera and what is done afterwards.

The photo is built on the light from the Softlighter and the ambient room lamps. Nothing else. Would you have had the nerve to light a Louis Vuitton shoot of Keith Richards using only a sub-$100 brolly box? I wouldn't.
__________

(© Louis Vuitton / Annie Leibovitz. Click the pic for bigger version.)

And yes, that light is walking itself around intuitively. The post production will always pull much more out of the photo. She always seems to have a celebrity in front of her lens. And then there is the whole gazillion assistants thing.

But the truth is that Annie Leibovitz creates her own weather. She is great with her subjects. She is great at the bedside manner, the broaching of an idea, the tenacity to stick with it and the stones (so to speak) to do whatever it takes to make the picture inside of her head.

I love her photos, even if they really are giant collaborations. And I love being a fly on the wall in these YouTube'd shoots. More, please.

She has been a visual compass point of mine for 20 years, and I have probably learned more over time from studying her than from anyone else.

Damn shame about the money management thing. Her brain has just never been wired to deal with money.

But I still love her photos.
__________

(Tweet Annie and Keith)

New: Strobist Index

No, not Tony -- a real soprano.

And not to be underestimated, as soprano Erin Holmes could probably stand in your front yard and let loose a note that'd break all of your front windows. I had heard her in concert the night before, and hers is a voice not to be trifled with.

So to play it safe, we shot in the garage…
__________


Okay, maybe it also had something to do with the fact that the headshot area in The Cave can't really handle 3/4 shots. It's pretty much a seated, head-and-shoulders type of place because of the low ceilings.

We were scheduled to shoot for HCAC long in advance, with no rain date. The weather was looking very iffy to be dragging flashes out to a location, so we decided to improvise in and around my garage.

So I dragged my flashes upstairs to the garage, put some Pandora on the iPad and luxuriated in a high-ceiling space. Have to say, I actually like the pullback shot of the garage. When I first saw it big, I really loved the crispness of what the two hard lights on the 45's did with the stuff in the background.

They were meant to light the white paper, of course, with each aimed at the opposite side for evenness. But the overspray looks cool to me, and I will definitely use that look to light a three-dimensional background soon.

Mind you, I would not do that to a person. Lights on the 45's don't really do it for me. Olaf Blecker can pull it off, but I can't. But I loved what they did to the stuff on the wall. Never know when you are going to learn something, right?

So, the challenge would be to get a few different looks out of one cluttered garage. And given the weather was holding off for a bit, we went just outside the door for our first shot.


The girls have the green thumbs in my family. Ben and I could probably kill a plastic plant. But thanks to Em and Susan, we live surrounded by plants. Don't ask me the plants' names -- I haven't a clue. I am more like, "plants … prett-ey…"

So we stuck Erin in front of a large, leafy bush right next to the garage door. It was low, so she sat down so it would be at the right height for a backdrop. It was appropriate, too, as she tends to play roles of nymphs and midsummer-night-dreamy stuff, etc. So earthy was good.

It was a cloudy day, so we had nice fill from the get go. We underexposed for that and brought in a big, soft light source -- a Profoto Acute in a 60-inch Photek Softlighter II. It's an umbrella with a diffuser on the front, and very cheap way to get into massive octa-ish territory.

The Softlighter is getting some real competition lately from the new (and more efficient) Paul Buff PLM system. They are both well under $100, and I use them each for different reasons. I have an upcoming post on the PLM, and another comparing the two. Long story short, if you want serious square inches for not a lot of money they both deserve strong consideration.

Anyhoo, that big light source allows us to tailor a soft bank of illumination from any direction that we want. With the underexposed cloudy light acting as fill, it's a subtle combo that does not call attention to itself.

This is mostly because we set the fill exposure pretty tight. Not much lighting ratio going on there. We could definitely drop the shutter speed, kill some ambient and make it more about the key light -- it's your choice.


Here is an ambient-only setup shot. The flash is coming in from high camera left, in very close. I clamped a large piece of cardboard to another stand and used it as a gobo to keep the flash off of the leaves on the left.

The light was a single Profoto head, dialed way down in the Softlighter. The ambient was cloudy (read: friendly for photogs) and we were working in close. This could have easily been done with a single speedlight.

So fifteen minutes in, we have our first look in the can. Next it was back into the garage, to scrounge another backdrop before we moved to the seamless.

If you look at the garage pullback shot big, you'll see a little ledge of foundation wall at the far lower left. Bingo. I love scrounging a completely different backdrop a few steps away.


The garage was dark, so we had to manufacture our own fill here. Cue the Softlighter again, this time positioned right behind the camera. It is big -- so much so that I can sit right in front of it and it still makes a great, on-axis light source.

Same principle as using a ring light for fill, only this thing is huge and leaves even less of a ring shadow signature.

As you can see by Erin's shadow at camera right, we had the fill light set very tight. Maybe one stop down. Easy process -- expose correctly for the fill light, close the aperture down a stop and bring in the key. Dial the key's power until it looks right. Done.

The key in this case was a beauty dish with a white nylon diffuser over it. Bonus: The garage door did not extend all of the way to the wall, so we had a little outcropping of front wall (camera left, just out of frame) with which to gobo and tone down the key light at camera left. (The key was coming from just out of the frame, so it would have been hot at left otherwise.)

We could have done the same thing with the stand and cardboard seen above, but it is somehow more satisfying to scrounge a mod built into the location. At least to me.

I love that we went from earthy to gritty in just a few steps of travel. That gave us a nice set of bookends, so we moved to the artificial backgrounds last.

The setup shot up top shows the lighting for the seamless white shot we did next. We used clamshell light on Erin. The Softlighter made a gorgeous key, but I had it dialed all of the way down. That meant I could not get enough underexposure on the umbrella I wanted to use as the bottom half as fill. As I said earlier, I am still finding my feet with the Profotos.

No biggie, tho. Since I was working at the low end, a speedlight on 1/8 power in a shoot-thru served nicely as a bottom fill light.

I love clamshell light. I am starting to experiment more with hard variants of clamshell, which is something that I find very interesting. But not today.


With those same two front lights, we shot the final look -- a 3/4 shot -- in front of a gray, Botero #023 backdrop in the same location. The collapsible backdrop is 5x7', subtly mottled, and lighter on one side than the other -- one very versatile backdrop, IMO.

For this shot, we used the Softlighter high and to camera right, turning Erin away from it to let it fall across her face. This shot is designed loose and with plenty of room for type to be added. Heresy, I know, to a newspaper shooter. But it can be very helpful to think ahead for a designer -- especially if you do not know how it might be used.

Since the key light was high and to camera right, I brought the speedlight/umbrella in low and to camera left -- almost 90 degrees form Erin. It is dialed way down, to just keep things from going to black without giving the appearance of another light source.

It is probably three stops down, and helps keep the hands from going black as they wrap around her body. Honestly, most of the fill on her face is probably coming from her own torso -- which you can also tell by the color.
__________


It was so cool to shoot Erin the day after hearing her in concert. She is at the beginning of an exciting career, and I cannot wait to watch her grow.

If you are local to Boston, you can catch her with the Boston Opera Collective. You can also listen to her on MySpace, here.

New: Strobist Index