Reminder Secure

For those who swear by cheap studio flash....

Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
14 July 2014 01:54
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

You may want to look at the flash durations of the 'ebay' flash in THIS link.  surprise
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Laurence Power is off-line
14 July 2014 06:25
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPower
Location
United Kingdom
Surrey
Esher

The point is do these figures actually matter now? In days of old (when men were bold etc. etc.) reciprocity failure i.e. the changing of the colour balance of a film depending upon the exposure duration was a major problem., anything over 1/1000 could prove a problem and more than 1 second equally so. Multiblitz made great claims that their flash heads always fired at 1/200th. Of course if there is rapid movement 1/200th is not fast enough, but it certainly kept their units out of the danger zone. The film technical guides used to give details of the exposure compensation required and the filtration needed to correct the error. Now with modern films and digital cameras if there is and error it only occurs at speeds in excess of 1/8000th.

I note that the actual power output is quoted, that is useful, firstly, it keeps manufacturers honest and secondly it helps people like me decide whether I can get away with a battery powered portable flash or whether I should use a powerpack and head system (no I don't possess a Ranger system or similar type of unit).
Laurence J. Power


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
14 July 2014 06:53
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

I think it's safe to accept that all equipment made in the last 10 years will have been destined for digital so reciprocity failure isn't a thing to be considered.

It's just that ~1/100th of a second though!

With pixel resolution & the ability to peep being what it is (& that the 1/focal-length rule just isn't really enough nowadays) I'm amazed people would be able to cope with such slow speeds (certainly your hit-rate would suffer if shooting complete sets of images).

I always found my Bowens to be pretty poor and even they shoot at around 1/700th t/0.5 (so around 1/230th t/0.1) and I often find them hit/miss especially when shooting at 200mm*

* - I personally believe the 1/focal-length is so outdated and more akin to viewing a 6x4" print rather than pixel-peeping and as such the rule should be 1/(2 x focal-length) with most digital cameras, and possibly 3 x in the event of using a D800 (for example).
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Neil Anderson is off-line
14 July 2014 07:09
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from RedChecker
I think it's safe to accept that all equipment made in the last 10 years will have been destined for digital so reciprocity failure isn't a thing to be considered.

It's just that ~1/100th of a second though!

With pixel resolution & the ability to peep being what it is (& that the 1/focal-length rule just isn't really enough nowadays) I'm amazed people would be able to cope with such slow speeds (certainly your hit-rate would suffer if shooting complete sets of images).

I always found my Bowens to be pretty poor and even they shoot at around 1/700th t/0.5 (so around 1/230th t/0.1) and I often find them hit/miss especially when shooting at 200mm*

* - I personally believe the 1/focal-length is so outdated and more akin to viewing a 6x4" print rather than pixel-peeping and as such the rule should be 1/(2 x focal-length) with most digital cameras, and possibly 3 x in the event of using a D800 (for example).




The 'rule' comes from an age when people didn't generally use f2.8 zoom lenses which weigh a ton. I think it is probably still fair enough if you are using fixed length lenses, although the faster lenses at higher focal-lengths may still be disproportionately heavy. And I guess the 'rule' assumes that you will adopt a pretty good stance which not everybody bothers with these days.

I also think that using a heavier camera (probably with a grip) like the D800 will give you a better balance (whatever lenses you choose) and therefore be easier to hold steady at slower shutter speeds.

Isn't the slow flash sync speed on your 6D more of an issue for you personally if it can't even sync at 1/200th ?
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
14 July 2014 07:18
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

My understanding was that the rule came from viewing an image taken on a 35mm camera and then printed at a certain size and viewed from a certain distance under certain lighting. I vaguely remember Kodak used to have documents on this you could download as PDFs that covered things such as print resolutions, film resolutions etc. but in the days of film & wet print there were too many variables along the way to the final print, as well as lens resolution being poorer than what we have today (through modern 'glass' and coatings).

Because we have digital and that clients can also scrutinise with pixel-peeping on screen this has upped the game as it were with image quality.

For myself I use all manner of lenses, be it heavy f2.8 zooms or much lighter primes and find the 1/(2x focal lenth) almost always works whereas 1/FL doesn't quite cut it (for me). Although admittedly I rarely pick up a camera these days (I've done 2 x 4 hour shoots in the last year) so my stance/grip and arm strength holding a camera isn't what it was when I was shooting almost fortnightly.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Laurence Power is off-line
14 July 2014 08:14
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPower
Location
United Kingdom
Surrey
Esher

Well if we are moving the subject over to minimum shutter speeds, 1 over the focal length still works fine for me, I have gone down to 1/4 with an 85mm which of course should definitely not work, but it did. Certainly knowing that I was pushing my luck, but needing to get the shot meant that I was careful, squeezing rather than pushing the shutter and being very careful breathing. My limit now is not so much camera movement, as subject movement, I keep on being told about how VR lenses will solve all my problems, well tell that to a horse moving at 30+mph!

Comments have been made about the use of heavy gear, well physics teaches us that mass is directly proportional to momentum, thus a heavy camera will have more momentum thus needing more energy to get it moving. Has anyone tried holding one of the really lightweight compacts compared to a decent weight SLR.
Laurence J. Power



37 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
Annaxxwachowicz Kacie NikkiLouise93 QueenDeeVa01
Andy_B antoinewynn bbphotos chicimages ChrisD edwards ElegantCaptures Essexjohn focus Ianparker1 jackw JRFox Kimily Kjoservices Ladiesman lenscape markeos50d Matt1988 mauricesimagery Mike103 noggy1930 ohkan PDCPhotos Photojoe670 ron rscott360 scottmcccxiv skymouse Steveh32 Studio1 TinDolls tms Willjamieson