 Sobia Chishti |
Things to consider in choosing a Studio Light kit I am looking for a 2 light studio set up. I am setting a small home studio in one of the rooms in my house. Size may be 14x14 or 14x 16. I can spend $500-600 on the whole set up (excluding backdrops and the stand). I am looking two light kits. 1) An Alien Bee 2 B400(160 True W/s),includes 2 lights, 2 stands, 2 48" umbrellas, 2 10' stands. The thing I like the most in this kit is that it has " cooling fan", and auto dumb of excess power, both of which are not offered by other brands in this price. 2) Photogenic StudioMax II, includes 2 320 W/s lights, 2 8' stands, 2 45" umbrallas. It does not offer both features I mentioned above. Obviously it has the advantage of having double the amount of Power in terms of Watts than the first one. I couldn't figure out, whether cooling fan and Auto dumb features are better to have or to have more strong lights??? How important the cooling fan actually is?? And what advantage a 320W/s light has over 160W/s light?? I am just starting studio photography and actually want to have a course here by Vik Orienstin( forgive me if I have misspelled)And don't know any specifics about studio photography. I want to have a set up which can grow with time. I'll appreciate your time and answer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Sobia, I've worked with the Photogenic PowerLight (PL1250's and PL2500's). If the StudioMax line is built like the PowerLights, they're very hardy lights; the PL's are the hardiest of any others I've worked with or looked at. That said, Alien Bees have gotten some decent reviews, albeit they were their more powerful models. The StudioMax lights you cite have twice the flash power of the Alien Bees model. 160 Joules (Watt-Seconds) isn't that much light power . . . about that of a Sunpak 383, Vivitar 283 or Vivitar 285 on-camera flash. When light modifiers are added to monolights . . . umbrellas, softboxes, etc. . . . they eat up light output. IMVHO a pair of 320 Joule (Watt-Second) lights are quite minimalist for a small studio. I don't believe you would be able to do all that well with the Alien Bee lights at half that power. If you're think you might ever do on-location work (prom, school portraits, etc.), especially a wedding, a pair of 500 Joule lights is minimal (using brollies and ISO 160 film @ f/5.6 lens aperture). IOW, you wouldn't be able to use the Photogenic StudioMax very easily for work other than in your studio. Go "on location" to do some work and you'll be wishing for more powerful lights quickly. A similar kit with a pair of 500 Joule AC monolights runs about $1000-$1200 with careful shopping for lowest price (from a reputable dealer). The StudioMax lights have 40 Watt modeling lights which are fairly low power as modeling lights go. AC powered monolights in the 500 and 1000 Joule class have 200 - 300 Watt halogen modeling lights. Even 250-300 Watt halogens can be marginal at modeling how the monolights will illuminate the subject if there's significant ambient light. You will need to turn off all the room lights and cover all the windows with something to effectively use 40 watt modeling lights. The cooling fan isn't quite as necessary with the power class of lights you're considering, especially with 40 Watt modeling lights. Fans become necessary with higher power lights to cool the power supply which can get quite warm if you're shooting a lot of frames quickly for a few hours or more . . . plus provide some cooling for the heat generated by a high power halogen modeling lamp. How tall is your ceiling? 45" brollies are not all that small. I've used 36" brollies under an 8 foot ceiling (standard modern house ceiling) and it wasn't easy the first time due to their size. Even so, all other things being equal (reflectivity of the material) I believe the 45" reflect more of the light output from the monolights because of their larger size. Be prepared to fuss with physical lighting setup initially to work out how you will use brollies that size and get the subject lighting you want. You didn't mention a flash meter. This is an essential tool for making accurate exposures using studio lighting. Older, used Gossen and Sekonic flash meters are very reasonably priced and for basic flash metering, they're as good as any of the current models with extra bells and whistles. You can get an accurate, used basic flash meter in excellent condition for about $125 or so. There are some dirt cheap flash meters in the under $100 class used and recommend steering clear of them. They're not that accurate and the construction of some I've seen is rather flimsy. Given a choice between the two setups you listed, I'd opt for the Photogenics. The main reason is their 320 Joule power level. Keep in mind that you'll want more powerful lights if you start doing on-location gigs in large spaces with larger group portraiture. Large spaces don't contain the light nearly as much as a small studio and it does make a noticeable difference. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
About Auto Dump: A convenient feature (my Hensel lights have it) but not essential . . . provided you always remember to recycle the lights by pressing the "test" button whenever you change their power level adjustment up or down (close your eyes when you do this!). Adjusting power level of the lights, with just a few exceptions, occurs when setting them up and metering for exposure. I've worked with some older lights that didn't auto-dump when changing output level. It wasn't that cumbersome, but after using lights with that feature for a while before borrowing the older ones that didn't, it required very consciously remembering to do that. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sobia Chishti |
John, Thank you so much for a detailed answer. I really appreciate your help. I'll do more research if I can get some used light kits that are powerful enough. And thanks also for the information on light meter. Didn't I forget another thing? A slave trigger? Could you give me a bit information on that too?
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Sobia: Just saw your question and have to go to work. There are three common types of slaves: optical (visible light), infra-red (IR), and radio. They also span an enormous price range and each have their pros and cons. I'll have some more about the different types later today . . . along with some tips about how you can use them and some very low cost homemade adaptations that work well in a small studio. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sobia Chishti |
I really appreciate it John. My Rebel 2000 doesn't have a connection to attach with sync cord. Someone told me that I can use a "hotshoe adapter" for under $10????
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Sobia, I'm at lunch and don't have enough time to write about the slaves . . . but your other question is very simple. There are simple hot shoe adapters for PC cord connection and they're less than $10. I use them out of sheer convenience in spite of 6 of 7 camera bodies I own having a PC socket on them if I'm using a trigger cord to the lights. However, once you've used slaves for any length of time, you're spoiled, and you don't want to go back to a cord tied to the lights. The cords are now a backup to the slaves if, for any reason, something fails with them. More on slaves later today after work. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sobia Chishti |
God Bless you John.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Sobia: Sobia, One additional comment about hot shoe PC adapters. You want the type with a female PC socket mounted on its side. The best maker of these with low pricing is Hama. Another good manufacturer that rates a close second to Hama is Kaiser. Both companies make a wide range of small photo accessories, and they're typically better than the "no-name" generics. They should hold up well for a long time if not abused. Nikon also makes one and it's usable on any camera with a hot shoe. Very, very well made, its price is significantly higher. Part of that is its excellent construction and the rest . . . you guessed it . . . is for the Nikon name. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Slaves 101: When I decided to get some slaves I found a confusing myriad of types, technologies, features and range claims. Took a while to sort through it. I have yet to see any range claims that are outright false, but a good number of them don't explain the conditions that can significantly shorten their range. Channeled slaves (IR or radio; not optical) use an encoded pulse that keep the channeled receivers from being triggered by transient IR and radio signals from other sources. Single channel have fixed encoding that cannot be changed. Multi-channel allow selecting the encoding, typically one channel from two or four. "Open channel" are "no" channel. The transmitters do not use any encoding and the receivers trigger whether or not the transmitter signal is encoded. There are three common types of slaves: optical (visible light), infra-red (IR), and radio. Optical: Older designs also respond to the "pre-flash" that some current auto-focus cameras use to assist with focusing, and some digitals use to help set color balance. "Red-eye reduction" pre-flashes drive them crazy. The light will not sync properly with the camera shutter if its optical slave responds to any of these pre-flashes. There are newer designs that ignore an AF pre-flash and only respond to the main one. They are more expensive though. The other down-side is a flash must be directly hooked to the camera to trigger all the slaved lights. If aimed at the subject, you'll get light from the flash on the camera in addition to the monolights and this is not something most of us desire. I'll break this up into several postings. Next up are some workarounds that solve the problem of the added light a shoe mounted flash creates when used to trigger optical slaves. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Optical Slave Work-Arounds: Work-Around #1 Work-Around #2: Work-Around #3 Why this works: Next is some information about IR slaves . . . -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
IR Slaves: These work using radiated energy just below the visible light region called infra-red. As already mentioned, heat is long wavelength infra-red at the low end of the infra-red region. IR transmitters and receivers can be encoded or "open channel." They're usually more expensive than optical slaves but less expensive than radio slaves. The encoded, especially multi-channel models, are more expensive and some approach the less expensive mainstream radio slaves. Open channel IR receivers are triggered by normal flash as well as all IR transmitters. The channeled models are triggered only by a matching encoded transmitter. Open channel transmitters (no encoding) are often a very low powered standard flash design with an IR filter over the flash tube to block out visible light instead of clear plastic that's used on a normal flash. They look nearly black until they're fired and the "flash" is a very deep red glow. Because they're very low powered, they recycle in a couple seconds. The single major manufacturer of IR slave systems is Wein. There are a couple others, but they're not nearly as well known. These work well in a studio. Often the multi-channel models are used in larger studios to switch between multiple light setups that use different lights for each setup. One set of lights will be on one channel and another set of lights on a different channel. Switching between different sets of lights is done by changing the channel on the transmitter. As mentioned already, an inexpensive IR transmitter (open channel or encoded) can be used to trigger optical slaves as if they're open channel receivers. The downside of IR systems, open or encoded, is utility for on-location work. They don't reliably trigger the lights under certain conditions. Incandescent lights (lights with filaments including halogens) give off enormous amounts of IR in addition to visible light. If there are a lot of high wattage incandescent lights . . . such as spotlights often found in the vaulted ceilings of churches, the IR from them can overwhelm the ability of the slave receivers to detect the IR pulse from the IR transmitter. This is the IR equivalent of trying to have a conversation with someone next to you at a football game while the rest of the crowd is screaming. If there a lot of other sources of IR present, especially higher powered ones, they won't set off your lights, but they will greatly reduces their normal range and can make them unreliable in triggering your lights. Using IR recievers (which have filters to block out visible light) may improve range and reliability under these circumstances, but it doesn't make problems very rare, just less common. I tried using an IR system one time for wedding portraiture in a medium size church with high vaulted ceiling. Never had a problem at home. It even worked out the door from the room the lights were in and down the hallway (IR reflects around corners much easier than light). It didn't work in the church. Too large a space to contain the IR (by reflection) and too many other strong IR sources (the large lights hanging from the ceiling) drowning out the IR pulse from the transmitter. Afterward, when talking about IR slaves with others who had tried them in churches, I found my experience was the norm, not the exception. I don't do sports in field houses or gymnasia using monolights . . . but know some that do . . . and distance from farthest light can be 150 - 200 feet. The most common setup is four lights with one in each corner of the gym. All those I've talked to about IR slaves that had tried them were completely disappointed. They had all manner of problems trying to get them to trigger their lights reliably. I've concluded they're a great studio tool, even in a fairly large one, and definitely less expensive than mainstream radio systems. However, the conclusion of others as well as me is they're not very good for on-location work. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Radio Slaves: The major manufacturers are Pocket Wizard and Quantum Instruments. These are considered the top end of slaves and have greatest flexibility for nearly any situation. They're also the most expensive. The models made by Pocket Wizard and Quantum have comparatively long range and have some bells and whistles that some pros would want (and use), but many others would not. Although very early radios may have been "open channel" yars ago when they were first introduced, all the current ones use digitally encoded signals. I found encoded radio slaves to be the only practical ones for "on location" work in larger spaces and when lights must be more distant from the camera than in a studio. A recent newcomer to the radio slave market has been found on eBay in particular. These are somewhat lower powered very basic, single channel and four channel (encoded) radio slaves made in China and being imported into the U.S. by some major eBay sellers. The simplest single channel ones sell for well under $100 for a transmitter and receiver. I bought two sets for about $125. Although they're not bullet-proof like the Quantum or Pocket Wizard, they're still reasonably well constructed (not flimsy) and will hold up if not abused. Their range seems to be about 100 feet maximum making them more than sufficient for studio use and for on-location work such as weddings with working distances from lights that don't exceed about 20 feet. However, these are not suitable for extremes such as a basketball arenas with distances from farthest light at times that can exceed 100 feet. There are probably some environs so loaded up with multiple wireless microphones and such that there could be problems. However, they must be rather rare as everyone I know who has used them for tasks like wedding work has not encountered a problem. I do have one nit with the ones I own. There's no switch on the receivers to turn them off and I must remember to remove the batteries between gigs. The transmitters only power up when they're triggered by the camera so their batteries can be left in. They're small, light, simple and reliable with a hot shoe foot on the transmitter (also has a short cord with a PC plug that can plug it into a PC socket on a camera body). They're what I was looking for when I began searching for slaves that would work well for the wedding shoots. The inexpensive radio slave may not be the best solution for you right now. With your limited budget, you might want to make do in a small studio for the time being with an inexpensive, open channel IR transmitter and using it to trigger the optical slaves built into the lights. One caveat about slave transmitters with Canon EOS system cameras. Your Rebel, along with the other Canon bodies in their EOS system are sensitive to flash (and slave) trigger voltage. Their electronics cannot withstand more than a few volts. Ensure whatever you buy for a slave system is compatible with the Canon EOS bodies. Simply "low voltage" trigger isn't enough. Some "low voltage" flashes are OK with all other cameras that use electronic flash triggering circuits, but are too high for the electronics in the Canon EOS bodies (film and digital) and will damage them. "Low" and "high" are relative things. By comparison, the very old electronic flashes and studio lights were "high" voltage . . . 300 to 600 volts! They were made over three decades ago when camera flash trigger mechanisms were mechanically actuated relays with silver contacts. These could withstand these high voltages (albeit some better than others but they weren't immediately fried by it). Cameras with electronic switching for flash triggering started to hit the market about 20-25 years ago. The very old "high voltage trigger" flashes and lights that put 300+ volts on the flash contacts fry their electronics pretty much instantly. Flashes and studio lights went "low voltage" at about the same time but some of these, including very new ones, are still too much for the Canon EOS bodies. Added these remarks because you mentioned you own a Rebel 2000 (one of the EOS line) and this is an important question you need to have answered before buying any kind of slave system, monolights or generic flash you will use with it. It's a well known issue by all the major manufacturers of flash and studio lighting equipment. There shouldn't be any significant player in the marketplace that doesn't know whether or not it's compatible with Canon EOS gear. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sobia Chishti |
John, I just saw your detailed, and I mean " detailed" answer. Before I spend time to carefully read and understand, I better want to pay my thanks to you first. You must had spend a long time for all this. I know I am going to find some good information which I would learn in years otherwise.Really, Thanks a lot for all your time and help.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||