Off camera lighting with pocket wizards and 580EX II and 430EXII

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Last week I used the optical slave system provided with the 580 EXII and 430EXII for a wedding. I generally liked the visual results when the system actually triggered. But I have a soft box on the set up, and even turning the 430 EXII flash head backwards still didn't give me the predictable triggering I want. So I am now considering buying 2 pocket wizards, a mini and a flex. But B&H is giving some warning about RF interference as does the pocket wizard site.</p>

<p>So here's my question to all of you who use a similar type of set up. They say the 430EXII doesn't have problems with RF interference, but the 580EX II does.</p>

<p>Originally I thought the optimal set up would be for receptions to have the 430EXII on my camera's bracket with the mini, and then the 580EXII on the light stand with the soft box and the flex. I thought having more power from the off camera source might be good, since the on camera one would probably just be for fill, but then I realized I may not be able to do power ratios that way. Have you found that to be the case?</p>

<p>So if I swap it, and put the 430EXII on the light stand with the flex, and the 580EXII on the bracket with my camera and the mini, do you think that would be a better set up? And do you have interference with the 580EX II and the mini? I am only seeing problems with it and the flex.</p>

<p>Any suggestions on this or past experience stories would be much appreciated!</p>

<p>-Vail</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I don't have Pocket Wizards so I'm not addressing that part of your question. However, I can tell you that a softbox on your off camera lights for reception 'room' lighting is probably not doing much to soften light, which is the main reason you use a softbox. At the distances one puts off camera lights in a reception room, it doesn't make much difference. I won't say this is absolute, since I have sometimes used a 5 foot umbrella on an off camera light set up as a room light.</p>

<p>If you are using anything smaller, it is pretty much wasted--in power and softening power. Taking the softbox off and/or switching to umbrellas if you must have a modifier, will solve one of your problems.</p>

<p>In addition, you need less power if you are not modifying the light with a softbox. So you can put the 430EX II off camera. Used bare, you can probably run all night long at 1/4 power and less. That would solve another problem.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Nadine, do you use the optical system only with your canon flashes?<br>

I'm not using the off camera light so much as ambient room lighting at all actually. I should have been more descriptive. </p>

<p>For example when I was shooting the speeches, I had it from the side so the subjects had a bit more depth. The sweetheart table was backlit, so it really did the trick. Same thing for when people are entering the room and I want to get their first moment reaction shot as they enter, I put the flash closer to where they are entering the room, and then have myself on the dancefloor where they are coming to. Then They were nicely lit for the first shot as they entered and as they got closer to me on the dancefloor. Then for dancefloor shots, I used it as a slight back light when I was dragging the shutter with the flash. It made for a nice bit of hair light. <br>

I tried in my apartment first with my lovely dog as a subject with the bare flash unit vs the soft box to decide whether it was worth the near $150 I paid for it, vs. just a stofen omni bounce, or decreasing the power output. In the end, frankly, the soft box did what it was supposed to. The light quality was just more of what I was looking for. <br>

If I wanted to use it as a room light, I would probably just have it on a light stand and have it aiming straight up (assuming bouncing was possible) or at a little bit of an angle. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>I use Cybersyncs.</p>

<p>Your description of how you use the lights is basically part of 'room lighting'. The distances you are talking about are still to long for a small softbox to affect much. Soft light is dependent upon how close the light is to the subject. The closer to the subject, the softer the light. The 'ideal' is for the size of the modifier (light source) to be the same as the distance between the light and the subject.</p>

<p>If you are using a 24" softbox, that means ideally, the subject should be 2 feet away from the softbox. If you tested in your apartment, you were not getting the full information, since distances in your apartment are not the same as distances in a reception hall. There is another concept outlined well in a strobist article that talks about how harsh a bare light looks placed close to a subject as opposed to much farther from the subject. I use this concept a lot when setting up bare flashes in reception halls. In fact, when using off camera lights to light up a small space, I will bounce them. When using bare lights to light up a larger space, I use them direct, and let distance reduce the harshness of the light. This is called 'fall off'.</p>

<p>To conclude--the softbox images taken in your apartment probably looked softer and less harsh because your living space is smaller. You should not base your decision on these shots because of the difference between the size of your living space and reception halls.</p>

<p><a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/lighting-102-12-position-distance.html">http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/lighting-102-12-position-distance.html</a></p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>ah, using the good ol inverse square law. I'll read the article. Thanks Nadine!</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>So generally when I'm doing close up portraits with the flash or macro work, the soft box is a good idea, otherwise, it is just sopping up power, yes?</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>This was shot in the morning while the bride was getting ready and I used the softbox.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>Exactly. In your example photo, the softbox is good, because it was close enough to the subject to make a difference re softness. Used with longer subject distances, it doesn't do much re softening.</p>

<p>Since it doesn't do much, it would be better to have the faster recycling for the reception room lights, with a flash that isn't working harder to push light through a modifier.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Ok, I'll chime in with my .02¢. As far as the PW Flex System goes, one of the reasons to <em>use</em> that system is so that you can control the flash output <em>from the camera position</em>. When looked at from that regard, you <em>have</em> to use the 580 on the PW trigger as it will be the master. The 430 can't act as a master and therefore couldn't trigger the 580 off camera while still controlling the flash power at the camera. I had thought the radio interference problem had been taken care off either by a shield you can use or that on the newer flashes Canon had improved it's shielding. </p>

<p>As far as <em>softness </em>goes: the larger the relative light source in relationship to your subject the softer the light. Nadine is correct that a small softbox from any distance doesn't do anything but rob you of power. Even in your example shot, you could have easily just bounced the flash off the ceiling (maybe point it back behind you off the ceiling) and come away with, at the very least, a very similar shot (IMHO, the bounced lighting would have been better). And thereby saved you the trouble of having a softbox attached to your flash. Don't get me wrong, I love a small softobx for very specific purposes. But bouncing flash will serve you better overall.</p>

[davidandkara]

<p>I just bought PocketWizards last week. The Flex transeivers came with a "sock" that you put over your flash that minimizes the RF interference. They originally were charging for the "sock," but after enough pressure it seems PocketWizard is including them with each of their Canon Flex transeivers. Just double check that you're getting the sock when you purchase them.<br>

My PW's worked just fine this weekend, and I have the same flashes. :o)</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>John, thanks for your 2 cents. =) I had the 580 aimed straight up for bouncing in the same shot. Otherwise the room was horribly dark. I added the soft box for a little touch of directional light. David, thanks for the note about the sock. I<3 this forum. I learn so much from you all! I will be sure at the next reception to just use the flash bare Nadine and save myself some battery power.</p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>if you want a super reliable system for canon flashes - go with radio poppers... the are the bomb and I love mine - use them in a variety of wedding senerios and they are work horses... you will love them</p>

[ianivey]

<p><strong>Pocketwizard flex vs. regular PW or cybersync</strong><br /> The advantages of the mini/flex over the regular pocketwizards are: the ability to control the flash output from the camera, and the ability to use TTL and high-speed sync. At a reception, TTL is of some value, but it's really not any more difficult to shoot with the flashes on manual at 1/4 to 1/8 power, depending on where they are. Some might even say manual flash power is easier to manage than TTL, given the inconsistency of TTL computation. I certainly would.</p>

<p>At-hand control of the light power is handy because you don't have to pull down the stand to adjust the flash. But once you set the lights the way you want them, you shouldn't need to adjust them much after that.</p>

<p>Having TTL and high-speed synch would definitely be nice if you're using it for off-camera lighting outdoors in bright sunlight -- say during a mid-day bridal shoot or engagement shoot -- and want to use shutter speeds higher than 1/250 to get blue skies. (Even then, you can use ND filters and higher flash output to get that result.)</p>

<p>You might value some of these features more than I do. I use cybersyncs, which are half-to-a-third the price of the original PWs, and in my experience as or more reliable. Nadine made me buy them. And I couldn't be happier with them.</p>

<p><strong>Off-camera flash on stands during receptions</strong><br /> At receptions, I typically use two or three Nikon SB-80 speedlights connected to Cybersyncs, with the radio trigger cabled to my camera body's PC connection (and velcroed to my on-camera flash), and one on-camera SB-900 for bounce-fill.</p>

<p><a href="00YWCp">In another thread, I described a setup</a> in which I used three stand-mounted radio-triggered flashes (bare, mostly aimed into the room but feathered up a bit) in a reception held in a room with very dark walls, uneven ceilings, and extremely low ambient light.</p>

<p>One thing I learned from that experience is the value of having a flash on camera for bouncing. If you look at some of the shots I posted to that thread, you'll see where bounce-fill -- even off a choppy ceiling -- would have improved my results. If I had that reception to do over, I'd have kept the three stand-mounted strobes, but added the SB-900 to my camera for bounce-fill. This would be roughly equivalent to putting your 580 on camera and having your 430 on a stand.</p>

<p>Vail, as much as you liked some of the results of having one flash on a stand, I predict you'll really appreciate the ability to set up cross-lighting. Check ebay for some used SB-80 flashes, or SB-28 or SB-24. You should be able to find good-condition SB-80 units for around $90-$110. An SB-80 set to 1/4 power will go all night on one fresh set of eneloops. Remember, the brand isn't important if you're just using them on manual power via radio trigger. You might be happy to have a third Canon-brand strobe that could serve as a backup on-camera flash in a pinch, but I don't know which older models are worth looking at in the Canon line -- perhaps Nadine has a recommendation.</p>

<p>Since a modifier on the flash only costs you power, you just leave the strobes bare and aim them:</p>

<ul>

<li>up and a bit into the room if the ceiling is suitable for bouncing, or </li>

<li>straight into the room and then a tad bit up to feather off the folks closest to the flash, if the ceiling is not suitable for bouncing, or even </li>

<li>back at the wall (set to wide angle with the diffusion plate down) if you have a big white area you want to use as a gigantic modifier, which actually can produce a useful softening effect if you put the stand far enough away from the wall to make the reflected light source big. </li>

</ul>

<p>I usually wouldn't use an omni-bounce because it will tend to throw too much light down onto the people closest to the strobe. The inverse square rule says those people will be problematically overexposed compared to the people a moderate distance away from the stand. It's usually better to bounce (i.e., make the light "source" closer to the same distance from most people it lights) or feather away from the people close to the stand (i.e., send most of the strength of the light farther into the room, and spill a smaller amount of it down onto the space close to the light).</p>

<p>If you purchase the flex system, you can still use it exactly like this. But something to consider: you could get a Cybersync setup with two triggers, three or four receivers, and a used strobe or two, all for about the same price you'd pay for a mini/flex pair (not to mention a mini/flex set with more than one receiver).</p>

[booray]

<p>Let me just point out that, with the mini-flex system you can control the flash power from the camera in TTL but not if the remote flash is set to manual. In that case it acts just like a dumb-fire remote. If the remote flash is set to manual, you have to adjust the flash power on the flash itself. If set to TTL, you can set the compensation from the camera -3 to +3... but you are at the mercy of the meter. :)</p>

<p>You can also control the on-camera flash and the off-camera flash with the on-camera flash acting as a master and setting ratios on that flash. However, you are still at the mercy of the ratios and the meter.</p>

<p>If they could figure out a way to let me set my off camera flash to manual and adjust the power from the camera I would be a happy camper...</p>

<p> </p>

[ianivey]

<blockquote>

<p>If they could figure out a way to let me set my off camera flash to manual and adjust the power from the camera I would be a happy camper...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's something you can do with Einsteins and cybersync / cyber commander; and using Vagabond powerpack, you can even do it without AC power. But of course you lose TTL using studio strobes, not to mention having to deal with the extra bulk.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>This is one of the things I still like about using a dumb trigger system--simplicity. I like simplicity in almost anything I do. I know what power level my manual flash is set for. My triggers are super reliable. I really, really like that. I can rely on the fact that the triggers will set off my flash every time (barring user error). I don't have to learn button pushing routines to operate complex triggering schemes. I shoot, the flash goes off at the level I want.</p>

<p>If something changes, like the light, I merely change f stops or ISO. If I don't want to, I (yes) walk over to the flash and change the power level. With my Norman 200Bs, I don't have to take the flash down and put it back up again because the power controls are on the battery pack. Even so, about the only time it is a minor annoyance to walk is if my lights are arrayed around a large reception hall with many chairs and tables blocking easy pathways. So far, I haven't shot in a reception hall that was so big it takes 10 minutes just to walk over to a light. However, with these cases, I've already figured out my power levels and are not changing them as I go. Again--if the lighting is changed dramatically, I'd say 99% of the time (maybe more), f stop and ISO changes can be made, and if they aren't optimum, at least they will work until I can get to the flash. Can't say I've actually lost images because I couldn't control my off camera flash's power level.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>So unfortunately I had to place my order before Ian posted his great description of cybersyncs, and went ahead and bought the pocket wizards, with the mini and flex. I'd used pocket wizards with Daniel McGarrity and found them reliable, so I felt ok spending the money on them. I practiced with them today in ETTL. I only just started using ettl over manual during my last wedding. I found the +/- 3 stops of flash exposure compensation to be sufficient. Nadine, I hear you on the complex button series to get the ratios set. But after I practiced with it a fair amount, it became pretty simple. I also tested it out without the soft box and with the soft box. Once hoisted way up on the light stand, you were right, the fall off pretty much was similar to that of using the soft box, without the need for as much power. Plus, I thought of as an item in the background at the wedding, it's WAY easier to photoshop out a bare speedlite, than a 15x15 soft box. <br>

I also contacted pocket wizard to find out if I'd need to use the included sock for the 430 EX II that is used for my off camera light. They said no, and that the 580EXII on camera with the mini should have no problems. I tested it and found that to be true, so I was pleased that I didn't have to add one more strange home made looking accessory to my rig ;)<br>

I am excited to be able to do off camera flash now with speedlites, but realize it will take some real practice to master. So I'll try to read up on strobist, and any other suggestions the wonderful pnet community might have would be MUCH appreciated. <br>

Thanks as always for being such a wonderful group to learn from!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>You should be just fine, Vail. Obviously the Pocekt Wizards work well, or there wouldn't be many people using them.</p>