ian_casement

<p>ProLites are really old units, I'm not surprised Bowens won't want to help out. Your best bet would be to take your unit to an independent repairer. Photocells can be turned on and off so I'd check the wiring at the switch first. These are easily popped out of the case usually. If you take the unit apart without knowing what you're doing you could cause yourself serious injury.</p>

<p>No.</p> <p>It needs upgrading to a D23WR.</p> <p>You can either get the upgrade or (the more savvy buyer would) buy a CoPilot. The CoPilot has an accessory cable connector which will connect to the T4D, work like a D13N, but with built in radio for remote Qflash control.. and the CoPilot can be upgraded by firmware upgrade in the future rather than having to send it in for physical upgrade.</p> <p>The first step would be to try it. If it works - great! If it doesn't then like any interface you would need to look at 1) The adapter firmware 2)The flash and it's version 3)The firmware (T5d-R flash firmware is at V3 firmware or better.</p>

<p>Yeah.. ancient.. and spoilt :-) The Flashmeter's are pretty old too!</p> <p>Just triggering one of the flashes will establish whether the overexposure is caused by any trigger delay between the two flashes though..</p>

<p>To check if multiple flash is the problem, switch one flash off and check if the flash value changes to see if that is the issue.</p> <p>The Flash Meter IV's I have both have the Multi-Single option, I thought that maybe that was carried through..</p>

<p>The way you have your radio receiver working in both hotshoe mode and cable mode might cause a delay issue between the flash sync which the meter will recognise but you might not.</p> <p>Try setting your meter to 'Multi' to measure both flashes if theres a delay between your two flash units firing. In Non-cord your meter will only measure the first flash if there is actually more than one flash.</p> <p>If you are shooting a white wall your histogram should be to the right side.</p> <p>If one flash isn't being recorded by your flash meter but your camera is recording it you will likely be overexposing by 1 stop.</p>

<blockquote> <p>So I strongly suspect that a high ISO was used with a not-so powerful flash.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> At night, boosting the ISO wouldn't be a problem. Things would get more difficult around dusk and early evening.</p>

<p>Reviving this thread as I've been experimenting with fluorescent flash filter packs for matching ambient.</p> <p>There is no "proper" correction gel, Period. There could be if the demand was great enough but mostly correction gels are created for film/movie work in adjusting tungsten, not for adjusting flash...</p> <p>Anyway.. I did a shoot recently in a gym where I needed to balance fluorescent lighting environment with added flash on a subject. I wanted the flashed subject to closely match the fluorescent background. All the text books say you just add a green filter.. but thats wrong.</p> <p>First, you need to know the colour temperature of your lighting. With a reflector mine are 5500°K or with a diffuser or softbox they're 5200°K. Neither value has a Magenta or Green tint. Secondly, you need to know the colour temperature of the fluorescents, a colour meter helps here - but not entirely as the value reported is not absolute but it does get you into the ballpark. (An absolute value would be a godsend, but in this life this is the way it works). From there you can <strong>adjust your camera bias</strong> for the Magenta/Green component (Quite likely to be a 20-40cc Magenta bias). For this calculation the colour meter is pretty accurate so can be used, alas as mentioned, in the Amber/Blue (colour temperature value) you'll find an inaccuracy due to there being a peak of green bias which will fool the meter. The procedure for this is to then reduce your colour temperature by approximately 600°K. You then have your working colour temperature and your camera bias set to provide the "correct" colour balance (as correct as fluorescent can provide).</p> <p>Thats the easy bit.</p> <p>Now you need to filter your flash.</p> <p>Using your colour meter set to your established flash colour temperature, meter the fluorescent ambient. Then use the resulting LB Amber/Blue and CC Magenta/Green values to determine your required flash lighting filtration. Here, you need to invert the values provided so that (say) a +30 Magenta results in a +30 Green and a +53mr Blue results in a +53mr Amber. You now have a composite filter pack consisting of a +30G and whatever the +53mr Amber results in (81C equivalent maybe?). Remember to increase the Amber value to allow for the inaccuracy of the meter and to match the 600°K you reduced your working colour temperature by earlier. (The Magenta/Green then needs attention).</p> <p>You have already shifted your camera bias in the Magenta direction to match ambient earlier so some compensation should be made to your lighting filter pack for this. (You'll find that adding a half value of the Magenta you added to your camera bias as Green to your flash works well here).</p> <p>Your flash filter pack will now consist of a level of Green and a level of Amber and both ambient and flash and camera colour balance should be very similar.</p> <p>You can check your settings by shooting a colour chart under ambient lighting and then again, the colour chart by flash lighting and compare the results, fine tuning to suit.</p> <p>I've not yet worked out how a custom colour balance will help provide filtration for a flash filter pack, but I'm sure there must be a way in comparing EXIF of a flash custom balance with that of an ambient custom balance.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The Super says 170Ws <a href="http://www.cameramanuals.org/flashes_meters/sunpak_622_super-1.pdf">here</a> Same head, different handle unit.</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> </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>

<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>

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

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>I had the same issue several years ago. I needed Speedlight type output, High power battery portables and studio type output and wanted to control it all with just the one radio system mixing TTL with Manual. That I found in Quantum.</p> <p>Monolights and pack/head systems are added by using Quantum Receivers too so no existing lighting was obsolete or beyond inclusion.</p> <p>Having multiple radio systems leads to incompatibility issues and problems where one system will not trigger the other; the need of two triggers to perform one function (as in the case of the early Godox) and TTL/Manual sync problems; and the necessity to expand multiple systems to cover your whole lighting kit. You then need to carry it all.</p> <p>Standardising on one radio trigger system is the way to go.</p>

<p>At a guess - since I've never used Dynalite - your older heads being used on the 500 pack may only be rated for that maximum output. Where the plugs differ this will be to prevent them being overrated - as by your 1000 pack - this, possibly being capable of blowing the 500 head's flashtube.</p> <p>The extra plug pin(s) are to enable the recognition of capable flash heads.</p> <p>The same happens on other pack/head systems I've used.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't use mono lights everything is pack and head system.</p> </blockquote> <p>That will account for the amount of cases. Mine don't pack down small either. Consequently, Monolights, Battery powered pack and heads, battery portables.. <br> You obviously just take what is appropriate.</p>

<p>Devil's advocate here.... :-)</p> <p>Just looked at Michaels gear shot. Is all that stuff really necessary? Like.. background roll (?), needing stands and support pole - wouldn't a lastolite pop-up be enough? </p> <p>Camera case + Lighting case + background are needed.. So whats all the other stuff for? You have 5 'stuff' cases and 3 stand cases there.. Doing it properly with monolights, I would have one case for lighting, stands, modifiers and one backpack for camera equipment. Less if using battery portables.</p> <p>I do get your point though. Complaining about taking the gear is no way to carry on.</p>

<p>You might be better off rigging a fixing system behind the lens mount. The adapter plus fitting ring won't be ideal with a wide angle. If you can fit the ring light nearer the body you will avoid cut off.</p>

<p>Selfie distance shouldn't need as great a power output as previously suggested, I never knew a 16 version was available I've always used the 12 version (as opposed to the 8).</p>

<p>OK, here's an idea (might work depending on lens diameter). Remove the viewfinder, fit a <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sunpak+D12&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib-uDHkeTJAhXGwBQKHfJ3Cv4Q_AUICSgD&biw=1264&bih=731#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=sunpak+Auto+Dx12R">sunpak Auto Dx12R</a> ring light, (cheap on auction sites and really useful) sync through the PC port and get happy selfies with Auto exposure, low bulk and neat lighting.. :)</p>

<p>SWC's are usually an Architectural or Industrial photographer's choice and I've never heard of anybody (in those genre) wanting an on camera type flash so what do you want to do with it? The 38mm lens is not much different to a 40mm lens of the other models but at least with those you can focus through the lens making them more suitable for fitting and using with a flash.. Basically, any flash with a high output (to compensate for the reduced depth of field), an auto mode and a sync cable would work.<br> Quantum X5d-R in 400Ws configuration, Lumedyne with Auto module, Sunpak 622 would work.. With a square format - go with a parabolic reflector head for best efficiency and to cover the wide angle of coverage.</p>

<p>T5d-R's are great for everything. More available power than a 580EXII and they never shut down due to overheating. Better is the X5d-R which can be configured at @200Ws which is greater than the T5d-R and then can be upgraded to 400Ws. These retain all your TTL capabilities and can be remotely operated off camera if you decide you want to.<br> You might also consider the Quantum Trio. This is a hotshoe flash with similar output to the 580EXII and can be bought with or without a built-in radio transceiver.<br> Trio's, T5d-R's and X5d-R's all work together wirelessly and you can add wireless triggering to Monolights and power packs too.</p>

<p>It would be fair to say that power packs don't always get used at full output, but they do often.</p> <p>Photographers who shoot with pack and head systems generally don't only have just one pack they have enough to shoot the majority of their work and will even mix various outputs of those to suit their requirements. My personal setup contains 6k, 3k, 1.5k packs then 1k, 800, 500, 400, 200 variants and they get placed/swapped to suit their capabilities. I would say that the 6k usually gets used at full power.</p>