Proper equipment to get this effect at night?

[vern_jensen1]

<p>Looking for a BIG light effect for nighttime engagement (portrait) photography. Examples:<br>

http://www.judytran.com/wp-content/uploads/pacific-palms-wedding-photography-0159.jpg<br>

http://www.judytran.com/wp-content/uploads/cabrillo-plaza-wedding-photography-0093.jpg<br>

http://www.judytran.com/wp-content/uploads/downtown-los-angeles-engagement-photography-00314.jpg<br>

http://www.judytran.com/wp-content/uploads/downtown-los-angeles-engagement-photography-00333.jpg<br>

<br />I'd like the light to also be able to convert this:<br />http://dparkphotoblog.com/wedding-photos/2014/11/pasadena-city-hall-vietnamese-engagement-wedding-0002.jpg<br>

into this:<br /><br />http://www.elmerescobar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Pasadena-City-Hall-Engagement-Photo-Ideas-1-1024x752.jpg<br>

I'm also looking for a flash powerful enough to "overpower the sun" during a daytime shoot, to control that nasty hard direct sunlight when you have to shoot in direct sun:<br>

http://www.judytran.com/wp-content/uploads/lake-oak-meadows-temecula-wedding-photography-0025.jpg</p>

<p>I have found, from experience, that my Canon Speedlite 430EX does not have NEARLY enough power to do any of this. Or at least, not how I'm using it. (With the diffuser plastic cap on, and attempting to put it 15-20 feet from my subjects, so it's out of the wide-angle shot.) <br /><br />I NEED something that I can put 15-20 feet away from my subjects, so that the flash tripod is not in the shot. Likely I need some way to "focus" the flash more so it's brighter this way.<br /><br />But I'm pretty sure I also need some kind of a portable, battery-powered strobe. I've seen some for between $1,000 to $2,000. That's pricey, so I need to know it'll do what I want before I buy.<br /><br />Is a strobe what I need? Or is there a way to make speedlites do what I'm looking for?<br /><br />When taking photos of a *static* scene at night, you just put your camera on a tripod and set the exposure for 8-30 seconds. But with speedlite flash, I don't know of any way to 'lengthen' or 'brighten' the flash output, without blurring my subject. Since there is just a *single* flash for a split second during that long exposure, I don't see any way to have the same effect as a long shutter speed has on the background. So I just need more powerful flash output, right? That's the only way?<br /><br />I'd also like to be able to 'blur' ocean water at night, with it being lit up by flash. Not sure how I'd do that either, since the split-second single flash would 'freeze in time' the water that it lights up.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Phottix Indra 500TTL.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>A lot can be done with something like a Godox Wistro or Quantum Q-flash.<br /> The first two of those night shots are simply backlit and overexposed, with soft frontal fill. That's just a case of choosing a wide enough aperture and a high enough ISO to overexpose the backlighting flash. It looks as if they were shot with a wideangle lens too, so the flash probably isn't that far from the tree and therefore doesn't need to be very powerful.</p>

<p>The fountain shots need two flashes of about equal power. One hidden behind/below one of the figures and the other frontal from the camera position. The real trick is getting a good balance between the background exposure and the flash lighting. That's down to the shutter speed and ISO speed chosen.</p>

<p>The shots in the archway also aren't that difficult. In fact the only evidence of flash in the desired shot is being used to throw light directly on the couple. The rest is a case of adjusting the WB to remove the yellow cast, increasing the exposure for the archway and getting the right perspective for the couple to obscure the (again overexposed) backlighting from the far opening of the arch. None of the above require a flash powerful enough to overpower daylight. That's not to say that they weren't shot with portable monolights, just that they could have been shot with something less expensive and less powerful. However, the flash head does need to be small enough to hide behind the subjects.</p>

<p>You're right in that your 430EX isn't powerful enough to overpower sunlight. It's a fairly weak flash that's a whole stop less powerful than Canon's 580EX or practically anything that YongNuo produce. It's about two stops less powerful than the Wistro or Q flash.</p>

<p>A silver brolly is about the most efficient way to get a semi-focussed light, and I think you'd have to use a continuous light source like LEDs to blur sea waves.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I'd guess a Metz 60 could serve as the main (back)light at full power. The 2nd link uses fill on camera? Maybe cranking up your ISO and ditching the difusor yoghurt cup cuts the cake too?<br>

I'd grab some scarecrows from my wardrobe & broom cabinet and do test shots till I know what I need light wise and shop accordingly later if I am 3 stops too weak with the ordinary kit.<br>

FTR: Ellis' suggestion sounds more convenient to use than mine.</p>

[vern_jensen1]

<p>So for the Godox Wistro or Metz 60... could those be controlled by a Canon ST-E3-RT radio transmitter? If not, what do I purchase to allow my Canon radio transmitter to broadcast to these units?</p>

[ian_casement]

<p>Your night shots look like the back lights are bare bulb. Having had both, I would suggest a Sunpak 622 over the Metz 60 if thats the way you're leaning as the Metz is a bit bulky to use and the diffuser head on the 622 would give you a more similar effect to what you're after. In addition to that you could fit the zoom head and get more focussed light when you want to without resorting to using grids. The 160-200Ws of the Sunpak 622 (depending on whether 'pro' or 'Super' version is used) is greater than other similar 160-200Ws flashes because of the efficient reflector system. This can be both an advantage and disadvantage depending on what you need. (?) As a high powered fill flash to balance bright sunlight its almost ideal.. (no TTL, but Auto works OK).</p>

<p>My goto light for any of your samples would be a Quantum X5d-R in 400Ws configuration. Plenty of power, With/Without TTL, Bare bulb, Reflector, zoom reflector, Gridded, Softboxed, Off camera, On camera, sync up to 1/8000s without output ratio loss (you get 400Ws equivalent x-sync output at any higher shutter speed)... you could use it with Canon optical - but not the ST-E3-RT. Ideally you would use the Quantum radio system.</p>

<p>Your "overpowering the sun" requirement isn't really that is it? Your sample isn't that - and it does actually use two lights.. both 'hard'.</p>

<p>Lighting the sea to get a blurred movement effect would need continuous light.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>The Metz would need a radio receiver with either PC socket or Maybe hotshoe that matches your transmitter system. - Sorry so far I only used Studio receivers which are mains powered. Metz 60 doesn't support DSLR TTL. - Its an old 1980s flash, but rather nice to operate. Main drawback: it's power switch gets shifted easily into "on" position by accident and the proprietary Dryfit batteries aren't really cheap. - I'd recommend converting it to 5 sub C cells that you charge with a non-Metz charger from the RC car scene. Metz built a NiCd battery that is easy to refurbish too. But their proprietary charger smells mainly made for Pb batteries.<br>

Jinbei is another brand for batteery powered monolights. Made in China, less intuitive user interface but moderately priced. - Maybe they are offering something for Canon TTL, They have their own dumb and less intuitive RC unit too. - I'm too inexperienced to ravish about that brand. We got 2 monolights 2 or 3 month ago at work. - Maybe ask me again in 5 years? And even then I could only tell about "light usage".</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Vern, almost no radio trigger is compatible with another make of radio trigger, so your Canon specific trigger won't work with anything other than another Canon whatever.<br /> You'll need to be working fully manual to get those overexposed effects, so any make or model of "dumb" trigger would do. I recently got some YongNuo RF-603s and I'm quite impressed with the build quality for comparatively cheap triggers. A kit of 3 of those would do exactly what you want - i.e. fire two flashes. They'll fire practically anything that can sit in a hotshoe or take a P-C connector.</p>

<p>I've had another look at those sample pictures. I think the archway shot uses a shoot-through umbrella for the frontal fill. That would fit with the nice spread of light and softish shadows seen. The same thing could be used for the other backlit shots as well. Getting the balance right between backlight and frontal light will need some experimentation. The key "correct" exposure is from the frontal fill. You can then make the backlight as strong or subtle as you like to taste, but it must be hidden behind the models. Another reason to choose something small that can hide on a slim and lightweight stand without being in danger of toppling over.</p>

<p>Incidentally, don't be fooled by the "60" in the Metz CT60 name. It's true Guide Number @ 100 ISO in metres, as measured by a flashmeter, is 45, which is still quite powerful for its size and portability. Personally I'd go for something a bit more modern with a quicker recycle time and variable beam width. The tree shots don't appear to have been taken with a bare-bulb head because the beam is distinctly directional with a fairly sharp cutoff.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"The 160-200Ws of the Sunpak 622 (depending on whether 'pro' or 'Super' version is used).."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ian, without wanting to hijack this thread, I'm curious where you got those W-s figures from. A top-of-the range hotshoe speedlight has a theoretical energy rating (based on tube voltage and nominal capacitor value) of around 75 W-s. So to pack 2 or 3 times the energy into something the size of a 622 is quite surprising - especially considering the old Sunpak AZ3600 had much the same space for its capacitor(s) and only had an energy of 80 or so Joules.<br>

I presume the rectangular lump on the front of the 622 is the battery compartment?</p>

[ian_casement]

<p>I looked again at the tree shots at night. Both are shot using a bare bulb. Theres plenty of evidence to support this, particularly the illumination of the hedge perpendicular to the light and the trees and hillside behind. Even with a bare-bulb the light is directional.. directional from the bare-bulb.</p>

<p>I don't think the Pasadena City Hall photo you like is actually lit. On either side of the couple the shadows on the columns are projecting downwards and inwards. To obtain that effect you'd need massive soft boxes and equally massive stands - far bigger than would be practical. With that amount of light already available, you'd probably not need any fill.</p>

<p>The GN of the Metz 60CT is 60m at 100ISO. The GN of the Metz 45 is 45m at 100ISO. The Metz 45 provides very similar output to a SB800 (within 1/3 stop - measured by flash meter). The 60CT provides only one stop more. Metz are hot cookies on their GN statements.. Alas, they fell into quoting maximum zoom figure GN's when they introduced their 76 version which I personally believe was and is misleading when you want to compare like for like.</p>

<p> </p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>The backlighting technique has long been done by photographers of days gone by and it has reared its head again. I personally don't like it and when I do see photographers do it it is way over done. Anyways to answer your question, I would first learn more about using a flash before deciding what flash you may or may not need. You can have a $2k flash but if you don't know how to use it then its a waste.<br>

The back lit shots are not done bare bulb by the way. I don't know anyone who actually backlights like this using bare bulb, it would actually waste a lot of power and minimize forward illumination. This is not to say you should not do it bare bulb. It all depends what your going for.<br>

Your requirements for a flash to overpower the sun and use 15-20 feet away with a grid to focus the light will require a professional strobe that has removable reflectors and accepts grids. All very nice things to have. You will have to do some homework and study what companies offer a variety of light shapers to allow growth with your investment. $1-$2K is a realistic budget to get started. Again, learn more about flash photography before investing.<br>

When you know what your doing you can make a speed light work to achieve these same shots. Try that first then if you desire more control and want more options move up to the $2k investments.</p>

[ian_casement]

<p>I've marked the areas which indicate a bare bulb was used:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.accolade-photography.co.uk/DPR/cabrillo-plaza-wedding-photography-0093-lighting1-600.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.accolade-photography.co.uk/DPR/pacific-palms-wedding-photography-0159-lighting1-600.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>A realistic (and measured) GN for a flash like Canon's 580EX is 30 m (98 ft) @ 100 ISO and with a 50mm zoom setting, which will only allow you ~f/6.5 at 15 ft. On a slightly dull day that might equal daylight. On a sunny day with a shutter speed of 1/250th and ISO 100 you'd need at least three of 'em or something even more powerful, and that's blasting the subject direct. Add in a diffuser of any sort and you're definitely into 100s of Joules strobe territory.</p>

<p>Having said that - why are your fill flashes not directly above/beside/below the camera? That's where fill is supposed to come from, not off to the side and nearly in shot. A 28mm moderate wideangle lens on full-frame at 15ft covers a 19 foot wide by 12 foot high subject area. That's enough room to get a 3 deep 24 person group into shot! With just two people as the subject you could move in a lot closer and save a lot of flash power. Halve the distance and you save two stops of light.</p>

<p>As someone once said "If your pictures aren't good enough; you're not close enough."</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>It almost looks to me that most of these were composited in PS. It looks like in the water shots the groom is walking on water?</p>

[fotografz]

<p>It isn't that complicated Vern. To use this sort of technique at a fast paced wedding, it can't be complicated! : -)</p>

<p>Personally, I back-light subjects like this when it makes sense, or to add drama. For my tastes, the samples you provided are a bit over the top in use of the back lighting ... but to each their own.</p>

<p>I mostly keep it simple for <strong>mobile</strong> location work like weddings or portraits especially when time is a factor: One off-camera strobe as the key light, and an on-camera speed-light for fill. </p>

<p>Below is a sample where the location was like a cave with fairly low ambient, and the client wanted a shot with the huge hanging plane. Regular frontal lighting didn't work (no depth & no drama), so I had my assistant crouch down behind the subjects with a battery powered strobe that had a 14" globe light modifier mounted on it. (I'll post a separate response with photo about that modifier after this).</p>

<p>The lens was 28mm, at f/4.6 with an ISO of 800 to avoid noise in the darks ... however, the shutter speed was set to 1/60th NOT 1/250th ... a technique called "Dragging The Shutter" ... that helps capture more ambient even in dark conditions. In dark conditions it is the "short flash duration" of the flash that freezes the subject, not the camera's shutter speed.</p>

<p>So in the image below, the plane and surrounding area was lit by the strobe/globe, and the on-camera TTL speed-light was manually zoomed to the max, and plus compensated a stop to help fill the subjects just enough to keep them from being too silhouetted. </p>

<p>If I wanted to have the background more blown out like your samples, I would have simply increased the back-light, without changing anything else. The point being that you have <strong>manual</strong> control of how much or how little.</p>

<p>Can this be done with a speed-light? Yes, but I is harder to pull off when lighting larger areas like you posted. You have to jack-up the ISO and run the risk of noise in the darks that are part of the dramatic effect. It is also harder to modify speed-lights with larger or specialized modifiers, harder to use radio controls, and harder to manually adjust a remote speed-light ... not to mention that this sort of full-power, heavy-duty use beats the snot out of a weaker speed-light mostly designed for on-camera fill.</p>

<p>If you're serious, I investigate all the choices of battery powered strobes ... especially ones with radio transmitters that allow control of the strobe settings from the camera if you tend to work alone.</p>

<p>More to come:</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>Here's a shot using the "Globe" modifier in studio. It shows the size. The model just held it with the strobe light behind, so it didn't show. Lots of fun to be had with a globe modifier.</p>

<p>Some strobe makers sell these, but they're expensive. I made mine using a $5 translucent milk-glass plastic globe lighting fixture from Lowe's, and epoxied it to a speed-ring mount for my brand of strobe light. Easy-peezy. I made a few for other photographer friends.</p>

<p>Battery powered strobes aren't cheap, however there is no reason to always buy new equipment. People who keep abreast of the latest greatest are often good sources of excellent lighting gear at a fraction of the new cost. Lots of semi-pros and advanced amateurs sell lighting that's a generation behind, but in excellent shape with years of service ahead of it. I did that for many years before being able to afford new lighting gear.</p>

<p>- Marc<br>

P.S., These highly reduced and compressed uploads above seem a tad darkish compared to the actual images, so here is a link to another studio shot using the globe that is bigger. <br>

http://fotografz.smugmug.com/organize/Saira-Sports/i-8bPgHmC</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd also like to be able to 'blur' ocean water at night, with it being lit up by flash. Not sure how I'd do that either, since the split-second single flash would 'freeze in time' the water that it lights up.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, tougher to do with a light source that's harder to modify and control.<br>

<br>

You need to contain the light on the subject so it doesn't spill onto the water in the background. For example, use of gridded modifiers, and even barn doors to precisely control what hits the subject and little else. Use of an umbrella is not precise enough for this application. <br>

<br>

Dragging the shutter will register the water ... and the slower the shutter speed you set, the more the moving water and waves would be smoothed out. This shutter speed will have less effect on the subject due to flash duration, BUT at some point the slow shutter speed will register a secondary image of the subject IF the ambient is lighting them somewhat, and they are also moving to any rapid degree. IF the subject is relatively still, it'll be easier. Just experiment until you reach the right balance.<br>

<br>

- Marc</p>

[ian_casement]

<p>The original portable globe solution is a $45 Lumedyne globe which does the same thing... especially in small spaces or for portability: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/126510-REG/Lumedyne_ADG4_Soft_Diffuser_Globe.html">soft diffuser globe</a> A <em>little</em> less harsh than bare bulb, but not a PIA to carry.</p>

[brooks short]

<p>Thanks, Marc.</p>

<p>It's always refreshing when someone not only answers a question with real knowledge and experience but then also backs up that answer with examples of THEIR OWN work! </p>

<p>Good job, Marc.</p>

[ian_casement]

<p>Pity their answers are wrong and unsubstantiated.</p>

 

[michaelmowery]

<p>LoL....Instead of guessing if was bare bulb or not why don't you ask the photographer who took the image. As for Mark W. he always makes great remarks and shows excellent samples. I have been on this forum for many years and have shown many examples of my work. This is not about who is right or wrong. This is a learning forum for new photographers to ask the questions for what they do not understand completely. We all have information to offer. It is up to that person who asks the question to chew the meat and spit out the bones. And more importantly to go out and do it themselves and learn first hand. This is not for old photographers to debate amongst themselves. There is no first prize. LOL</p>

[ian_casement]

<p>Providing unfounded information is misleading. </p>

<p>The OP wanted specific information on specific images he linked to. (I doubt whether people even bothered to view them all). There is an issue is about whether a bare bulb was used or not since this is pivotal to what the OP should base his purchasing decision on with reference to his objectives. The OP could have asked the photographer what was used - he didn't. He asked here. Any experienced photographer should be able to reverse engineer an image with reasonable accuracy by reading the telltale signs. In the images provided there were plenty of signs. Stating that the images didn't use bare bulb without substantiating the reason is pure folly.</p>

<p>Insert smartass lol here.. ( ).</p>

 

[michaelmowery]

<p>I offer experience not reversed engineering. My actual years of photography and lighting experience is my foundation for all my advice and comments and I have the images to prove the level of photography expertise. When I see a picture of a shot that I was not present on I can only guess to how it was created it. There are always more than one way to skin a cat. That is the beauty of this forum that the OP can hear different perspectives from working professionals or experiences shooters. </p>

<p>Most pro flashes (excluding speed lights) can do all that you requested here. If one is going to invest $1 to $2K on a flash then make sure it has the power and the ability to accept accessories for future growth. Removable reflector (allowing for bare bulb use) is a must. (My opinion) LOL.<br>

Renting a pro flash prior to making such an investment is always encouraged. Although if you are lacking knowledge on how to use flash then I would recommend taking a course or better yet find a local pro photographer and learn from them. Practice and going out and do it is the best teacher and making mistakes can be even a better teacher during this time. Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[ian_casement]

<blockquote>

<p>Ian, without wanting to hijack this thread, I'm curious where you got those W-s figures from. A top-of-the range hotshoe speedlight has a theoretical energy rating (based on tube voltage and nominal capacitor value) of around 75 W-s. So to pack 2 or 3 times the energy into something the size of a 622 is quite surprising - especially considering the old Sunpak AZ3600 had much the same space for its capacitor(s) and only had an energy of 80 or so Joules.<br />I presume the rectangular lump on the front of the 622 is the battery compartment?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what Sunpak did to make the 622 so much more powerful than the 3600 but powerful it is. The Sunpak 622 is phenomenal. If it was upgraded with current TTL and remote control it would be pretty much perfect. They're just so useable and adaptable. They're not ideal for fitting to modifiers but many have done so to make use of their output power.<br>

<br>

I have half a dozen or so of these with the diffuser heads and zoom heads and over the years I've used them in all sorts of ways. Much like Vern, the overriding requirement was for high power in an easy portable package. High power to counteract bright sun and portable because if its not - its never to hand when you need it. You're right about the battery compartment being in the front of the 622.. Thats so convenient. No external battery packs or cables.<br>

<br>

One Sunpak 622 with a couple of heads as well a couple of Speedlights would give Vern pretty much all he needs to create what he linked to.<br>

<br>

With the zoom head fitted (a great benefit over the standard or wide heads since you get Wide, Normal and Telephoto in one head) and set at the "N" setting - roughly equivalent to a standard lens FOV (the same coverage as a Standard head) the output measured on the subject was greater than the equivalent Quantum 160Ws head. With the Barebulb head fitted to the 622 <strong>Pro</strong> the output matched the Quantum 160Ws barebulb. The greater output with the zoom head is down to the efficiency of the reflector only illuminating an oblong format whereas on the Quantum/Lumedyne/Norman/Wistro/Godox a parabolic reflector wastes light because of providing a circular illumination. It's easy to see the difference when these two types of lighting are used - the circular coverage is a lot easier on the eye whereas the rectangular coverage like a Speedlight, has hard edge transitions. <br>

<br>

I've tested the 622's against the Metz45's, CT60's, Quantum T series and X series in 200Ws and 400Ws configurations so I know their capabilities quite well.<br>

<br>

A disadvantage of the Sunpak 622 Barebulb Head is that it doesn't have the facility to fit a parabolic reflector to it, theres just no fitting provided for one. It is pure Barebulb. The Sunpak 622 <strong>Pro</strong> with the Barebulb Head matches the 160Ws T5d-R 160Ws setup whereas the Sunpak 622 <strong>Super</strong> provides 1/3 stop more.<br>

<br>

I use 5000Mah C cell Nicads in the battery compartment. These give full power recycle in just under 4s.<br>

</p>

[glen_h]

<p>http://www.cameramanuals.org/flashes_meters/sunpak_auto622_pro.pdf</p>

<p>says 125Ws for bare bulb and diffusion head.</p>