ian_casement

<p>Being in the UK - you should forget transformers they're just another 'thing' to add to the list of 'stuff' you need to do the basic thing of adding light. Sell your lights, buy new 240v stuff. In fact, sell your stuff and buy self regulating 240-110v lighting you can use anywhere like I did back in 1988 (still using them :) and the same parameters apply) Blabbing on about transformers is an amateurish way to conduct any serious business and should just be nipped in the bud before it ever gets started and you commit yourself to transformers exceeding the value of your lighting. The only transformer I posses is to power a 4 way Lumedyne charger which is a 110v version. The only thing you need to bear in mind with multi voltage lighting is that modelling lights need to be changed for 110v use and 240v use.. but if you don't travel with these then the 240v/250w bulbs work fine without any other consideration- which is how it should be.</p> <p>Then... For travelling or location purposes I've dropped monolights for battery portables. Quantums in fact, they work anywhere with the output I need, without the voltage problems encountered and without the necessity for earth leakage trips.. 100ft extension cables.. multi adapters.. and an age to set up.</p> <p>I don't know why I keep on having to mention this, I must come across as a complete bore, but thats the way it is and its about time people stopped pussyfooting around and stopped following the herd.</p> <p>The disadvantage of battery portables is that they have restricted modelling lights at best. I've been using these for years without problems and even use studio strobes without modelling lights to a large degree. I would agree that a better modelling light solution would be a welcome addition but this would be the only compromise to be made. If I was really worried about this problem, I'd create a solution. I haven't. Ergo; Not really a problem - especially on location where ambient exceeds viable modelling light options.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yes they do. Have done for years.</p> <p>I'm entirely happy with Quantum which would equally fulfil all your requirements. Lack of modelling light is about the only real gripe.</p> <p>You do need to have the will power to not gravitate towards the latest gizmo or 'Industry Standard' (Lol) or cheapest offering, but instead, look at what is offered and if that fits with what you're wanting to do, or can potential adapt to what you might want to do.</p> <blockquote> <p>Ideally I would like a functioning system of speed lights and mono lights, all RF controlled, decent quality, and easy to setup.... fits easily in a bag... built-in radio's and TTL... radio is completely built in....<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Yep.. All that. In all variations.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>So frustrating.</p> </blockquote> <p> Not really. :)</p> <p> </p>

<p>Your solution might be as easy as adding a diffuser cap?</p>

<p>Set the Minolta Meter IV to "analyse" and it gives you a graphical representation of total exposure and flash component of exposure. These are illustrated as pointers above the shutter speed and aperture readout on the LCD.</p> <p>Changing the shutter speed on the meter will change the illustrated ratio. (I think aperture change does too).</p> <p>Either adjust flash level or shutter/aperture setting to achieve your desired result.</p>

<p>I notice a few things in Ralph's examples:</p> <p>Using HSS/FP mode enabled the 'normal' <strong>inversion</strong> of graduation between max x-sync flash sync and beyond x-sync flash sync is in existence.</p> <p>The highest output provided by the beyond x-sync example is greater.<br> <img src="http://i2.wp.com/lightbasics.com/wp-content/uploads/QFLASH-C1-COMPARE.png?resize=690%2C461" alt="" /></p> <p>I also notice that when HSS/FP mode is enabled that the 'normal' <strong>inversion</strong> of graduation between max x-sync flash sync and beyond x-sync flash sync is in existence.</p> <p>And again, that the highest output provided by the beyond x-sync example is greater.</p> <p><img src="http://i2.wp.com/lightbasics.com/wp-content/uploads/QFLASH-C2-8000L.png?resize=690%2C461" alt="" /></p> <p>The common factor (besides the shared inversion of graduation) <strong>is increase in exposure.</strong></p> <p>Since these examples are using an optimised system which optimises for each individual shutter speed - then you won't see very much difference between each shutter speed (maybe an advantage to using Pocket Wizard ControlTL system) but using the <strong>regular and existing camera HSS/FP mode retimed shutter sync</strong> then you will see these differences I pointed out as I have already tested, tried, compared and wrote about, which I illustrated back in 2011. http://www.commercialphotographer.co.uk/blog/?p=274</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>the transit time and exposure time (DURATION as you insist on calling it)...<br> At X-synch speed the second blind begins to close almost as soon at the first blind has fully opened. The frame is effectively fully exposed for only the transit time of the shutters, not twice that time. Otherwise the X-synch speed wouldn't be 1/320th of a second would it?</p> </blockquote> <p>DURATION is not exposure time.</p> <p>It takes 1/320s for the first shutter curtain to traverse the sensor to fully expose it, it then takes 1/320s for the second curtain to traverse the sensor and complete the exposure. Thats 1/320s + 1/320s = 2/320s = 1/160s.</p> <p>1/160s is the DURATION of the exposure. 1/320s is the EXPOSURE time.</p> <p>I already stated that.</p> <p>For a 1/8000s shutter speed, the first shutter takes 1/320s to traverse the sensor with the second curtain travelling behind it at a fixed interval of 1/8000s. You then get a DURATION of 1/320s + 1/8000s = ALMOST HALF THE DURATION OF THE PREVIOUS EXAMPLE.</p> <p>When you're discussing how to obtain the most from a cash with a fixed t.5 time then you need to match your shutter duration to the flash duration as closely as possible for 1) Greater Output 2) less banding. The faster shutter speed does this because its DURATION is shorter and more closely matches the t.5 times discussed.</p> <p>What do you not understand?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Rodeo Joe wrote:<br> Ralph, the issue is not about whether Hypersynch allows higher shutter speeds to be used. I never denied that. What's arguable here is whether the feature is able to be used to substantially vary the ratio of flash power to ambient. And plainly it isn't.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree that 'doing it' is one thing, but getting some advantage from it is another. The 'getting some advantage from it' is the hardest part since as described previously the use of ND filters could adequately be used to attain some specific wider aperture whilst retaining flash benefit ratio, but Hypersync use can provide higher shutter speeds - but not always retain ratio. Ideally the higher shutter speeds should be provided along with retained ratio, but alas that isn't always the case.<br> <br> Even better, would be higher shutter speeds and increased flash benefit ratio but those cases are rare and don't need 'Hypersync' to be attained. I believe Ralph's research has this objective in mind with searching for a lighting/trigger/camera combination effecting the best result is whats sought.<br> <br> </p>

<p>No need to be sorry Rodeo Joe, you're still wrong.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sorry Ian, but you still don't seem to be understanding how a focal plane shutter works. When the shutter becomes a slit, the <em>effective</em> exposure of the sensor or film is reduced, but the shutter still takes 1/320th or 1/250th (or whatever) of a second to travel across the entire frame.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> When the gap <strong>reduces</strong> between the first and second shutter <strong>SO TOO does the exposure DURATION. </strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> DURATION is measured between the point the first curtain STARTS to open to the time the second curtain CLOSES.</p> <p>Different durations are necessary - because - otherwise every exposure shutter speed set would be the same. Patently they're not.</p> <blockquote> <p>Rodeo Joe wrote:<br> If the exposure DURATION really was limited to 1/8000th of a second, then you'd only see an area of the frame the size of the slit exposed. In fact Ralph's images above are a perfect example of an how the slit exposes the frame.</p> </blockquote> <p>Pardon me.. I never said anything of the sort. At 1/8000s the shutter DURATION is closer to the maximum x-sync speed of the camera (with the shutters travelling in close proximity) than when a 1/320s shutter speed is set (on a 1/250s x-sync camera) because the shutters are then furthest apart and force the DURATION to be longer.</p> <p>E.G.<br> At 1/250s shutter speed the first shutter transits the entire sensor in 1/320s (your figure), then after the sensor is fully exposed the second curtain follows and takes another 1/320s (your figure) to transit the sensor.. total DURATION 1/320s + 1/320s = 2/320s = 1/180s (long duration)</p> <p>At 1/8000s shutter speed the first shutter transits the entire sensor in 1/320s (your figure), then very, very, closely after (say 1/8000s) the second curtain takes 1/320s (your figure) to transit the sensor.. the sensor is never fully exposed.. total DURATION 1/320s + very, very, closely (+1/8000s) = near to 1/320s (short duration) !</p> <p>Hence you will see that the DURATION of a shutter speed set to 1/8000s will take less DURATION than any other shutter speed set.</p> <p>Why is this interesting in this thread? Because using a long duration flash, the flash DURATION will be closer to the shutter DURATION than any longer shutter speed (of the kind.. 1/250s - 1/4000s).</p> <p>See what Ralph quoted as the longest t5 times... 1/300s...</p> <blockquote> <p>Ian wrote:<br> Interesting point for two reasons; As already pointed out the shortest DURATION is at maximum shutter speed AND that the best performers in your Hypersync tests have flash duration t.5 times of around 1/300s.</p> </blockquote> <p>E.G. NOT at 1/180s (This is almost twice the DURATION and will receive a greater variance of flash output between bright and dim).</p> <p>I hope that helps explain to you.</p>

<p>I wrote: <br> "It makes total sense that an 'ambient like' flash needs to be sustained over the DURATION of the shutter time which is why also, shutter speeds the like of 1/320s will be worse (graduation wise) because they are open longer and include greater flash deterioration than faster shutter speeds of 1/8000s."</p> <blockquote> <p>Rodeo Joe said:<br> Ian, this statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how a Focal-Plane shutter and FP flash synch works. The shutter transit time - how long the shutter takes to travel across the frame - stays constant at speeds higher than X-Synch, regardless of the exposure time set. Therefore the flash fall off is shown over that transit time, not just for 1/1000th or 1/8000th of a second or whatever.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Not in my book it doesn't and FACTUALLY it isn't either.</p> <p>I made a specific reference to <strong>DURATION</strong> in my text and nothing about shutter transit time. Shutter transit time is a constant, DURATION is a variable and is dependent on the distance between the shutters.</p> <p>When two shutters transit a sensor with identical transit times and the distance between them reduces due to the shutter speed set, (i.e. at 1/8000s the distance - or gap - being smaller) then the DURATION of the shutter exposure reduces. THUS at 1/320s the DURATION of exposure is greater than at 1/8000s and therefore needs a longer sustained light level to achieve the same result as could be obtained at 1/8000s. The same would apply to your example of 1/1000s and 1/8000s since the travelling slit size at 1/1000s is greater than that at 1/8000s and would require a longer DURATION.</p> <p>It is not I who "shows a complete lack of understanding of how a Focal-Plane shutter and FP flash synch works." It is you.</p>

<p>The shutter speed effect is pertinent at the higher end range where the two shutters are following in very close proximity and the DURATION of the shutter ''open' time is the shortest. This means that more of the peak output can be captured.. and in some flash duration cases a greater amount of the flash duration within the frame at x-sync.</p> <blockquote> <p>Incidentally, I suspect that the fading would be much more noticeable with a camera having a longer shutter transit time. I believe that all of Nikon's Pro and Prosumer full-frame cameras have a fairly rapid transit time of < 1/320th second,</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Interesting point for two reasons; As already pointed out the shortest DURATION is at maximum shutter speed AND that the best performers in your Hypersync tests have flash duration t.5 times of around 1/300s.<br> <br> It makes total sense that an 'ambient like' flash needs to be sustained over the DURATION of the shutter time which is why also, shutter speeds the like of 1/320s will be worse (graduation wise) because they are open longer and include greater flash deterioration than faster shutter speeds of 1/8000s.<br> <br> The importance of the step change shutter speed test would be to estimate at what point the graduations would be acceptable and indeed illustrate that there is a difference between shutter speeds.<br> </p>

<blockquote> <h4>why HyperSync?</h4> <p>What are the benefits to increased shutter speeds while still being able to use your strobe? While most view HyperSync as a technique to “overpower the sun,” that’s only one of three applications where HyperSync can be useful:<br> 1. Increasing flash-to-ambient ratio to darken daylight exterior backgrounds.<br />2. Enabling large apertures when using strobes in daylight, without using an ND filter.<br />3. Employing high shutter speeds when using strobes in daylight to freeze motion.</p> </blockquote> <p>I would question the validity of 1... "Increasing flash-to-ambient ratio to darken daylight exterior backgrounds."</p> <p>The physics of hypersync is to allow a faster shutter speed to be used with the SAME flash output. The SAME flash output (operating as 'ambient') is being reduced by shutter speed too.</p> <p>So where does this 'Increasing flash-to-ambient ratio' happen?</p> <p>Not with Speedlights, not with long duration flashes (except at max shutter speed - and that marginally) and not with short duration flash without banding or severe shutter curtain intrusion.</p>

<p>I have 'studio' monolights which I use if I need modelling lights on location as well as power packs but these get 'plugged-in'. My goto location lighting is Quantum kit. I have two stand/head/packs already setup, one with an Octabox fitted, one with diffused head each capable of being carried in one hand. I have a camera bag containing controllers and flash - Trios, Pilot and Copilot. Then I add-in a self contained T5d-R kit (of 3 heads) or two more kits of x2 each X5d-R's as required. If I need more I then add-in another 4 Lumedynes in a kit (normally for background use). Modifiers are shared between all and I have modifiers spread throughout the kits to suit their likely use. All controlled or just triggered by the Quantum FreeXwire system.</p> <p>Whilst its possible to use two heads per pack at any ratio you want I would much prefer one pack per head.</p>

<p>Each has his own opinion.</p> <p>For environmental portraits (anything really) mine is that you go for a power pack system which uses one battery and can supply multiple heads. The simplest and most expandable would be Lumedyne (although the fine output control can be limited depending on your pack and definitely limiting on multiple head or additional booster head use. They have no remote control capability). The next and most comprehensive would be Quantum. Quantum will allow full radio remote control in all modes, high output, the ability to add output, the ability to add heads and the ability to individually control the output of those heads to whatever ratio you, the photographer, decides on. No other battery is required.</p> <p>One battery powering a large Ws setup with multiple heads slows down recycle and reduces maximum pops, but you use what would be appropriate to your needs.</p> <p>1 200ws pack +1 head.<br> 1 200ws pack +2 heads (with extension cable)...<br> 1 200ws pack +200ws + 1 head/2 heads(with extension cable)<br> 1 200ws pack +200ws + 200ws, +2 heads(with extension cable)<br> 1 200ws pack +200ws +200ws + 200ws, +2 heads(with extension cable)<br> Choose what you need.<br> Or, just one pack per head..</p> <p>I don't subscribe to multiple use of under powered Speedlights - despite their portability if you decide to use AA's in them - which most don't - and then need to add a battery dependent receiver(s) to every Speedlight.. every single one of them... then at only 80Ws a time. Five sets of receivers to match a single 400Ws head and single receiver just doesn't make sense.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"The literature for the SSR says that the maximum trigger voltage is 12 V, and my Norman puts out 18 V. From that I've concluded that replacing the L8 with an SSR trigger is not an option. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with Ian's statement that "older power packs work well with the Wein Receivers."</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I guess I never read the instructions and just use them on everything... and I really do mean everything. <br> <br> </p>

<p>I don't have any experience with the Wein L8 receivers only with the SSR type receivers. I steer clear of the smaller L8 type receivers as their range and sensitivity are not very good and my experience of the smaller receivers like those and the 'peanut' type is not very good either. They do look attractive for use with Lumedyne type heads and I considered at one time getting a bunch of the XL8 receivers because of their range and small form factor and battery less requirement but my collection of SSR's is such that extra receivers would just be an unnecessary addition.<br> <br> I do have a Wein SSR-Jr transmitter which works well and numerous other Wein triggers which work.. better; including the private channel transmitters and receivers.<br> <br> Not all flash equipment is compatible with the Wein receivers - or not all Wein receivers are compatible with all flash equipment - which you might find odd, but thats the way it is.. When using power packs (in particular) I don't use Wein Receivers, I use their in-built slave cells instead. The Wein receivers don't work on <strong>my</strong> power packs but everything else from speedlights through Quantums, Lumedynes, Sunpaks, monolights works fine. Older power packs work well with the Wein Receivers.<br> <br> I would expect that you are using the H-prong type L8..? You might try switching the polarity by fitting the cell the 'wrong' way around by fitting the blades in the opposing size holes, which works sometimes depending on the circuit wiring, or just omit using the L8 altogether and use any built-in slave your Normans might have.<br> <br> Strangely, the SSR-JR works off a 9v battery whilst the SSR transmitters work off a couple of AA's, you'd probably expect the SSR-JR to have a better range or faster recycle, but that isn't the case.<br> <br> With your two products you need to determine which one doesn't work. Is it the transmitter or the receiver? If the receiver works fine when you use another flash to trigger it and the Wein L8 doesn't then your Wein L8 must be at fault.</p>

<p>You need only an IR transmitter on your camera then. I've used these reliably for over 35 years and still do. With built-in slave cells on packs requiring no batteries it just makes sense.<br> Wein and Prolinca make IR triggers.</p>

<p>Balcar packs have brilliant optical slave cells and with their directional reflective caps I've never had any problem using them with optical triggers. Its been a long time since I used the original 1200, but I have no doubt that optical would be highly efficient way of triggering. I certainly had no issues in any situation.</p>

<p>The GN provided by Harry was obviously in Metres - and wrong - (f6.4 at 10 feet at 100mm zoom? Really?) if you then want to compare with Ellis's GN's measured in Feet.</p> <p>Ellis is thinking Harry is talking in Feet whilst Ellis is definitely talking in Feet - so why should the GN be measured in Metres? It is sensible to work off the same measure value and that would be the one Ellis is using to compare.</p> <p>And I'm in Europe on feet.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I am assuming you are sarcastically joking Harry. joking. The formula for calculating a flash's guide number is GN = distance × f-number,"</p> </blockquote> <p>The formula for calculating a flash's guide number is GN = Distance <strong>(in feet)</strong> x f-number.<br> I hate how flash manufacturers use their longest telephoto setting to provide a guide number.</p>

<p>On the battery there is the following. On / Off / FST. 50 / 100 / 200. With 100 / 200 dials on the side.<br> <br> That doesn't sound like an 065 pack, it sounds like an 065 pack with an additional booster.<br> <br> If there are two components to this then the top component has On / Off / FST. 50 / 100 / 200. on two switches and the second component will have 100 / 200 on it.<br> <br> You combine the outputs of the two components to provide your full flash output. 200 on the bottom component plus 200 on the top component will provide = 400Ws.<br> <br> SOMETIMES.. the 100/200 component will have an output socket too. This can be used for a second head 100/200 or the 200 can be transferred to the top component by selecting an upright pointing arrow.<br> <br> </p>