dakana posted:

I can answer 2 of these:
AlienBees have a hole for an umbrella built into the strobe itself.
Also, one easy method for triggering them is their built-in photoslave. They'll fire when they detect another flash. This is nice if you already own a smaller flash and poverty wizards, as you can use the small flash for fill, rim light, or hair light and trigger the Bee with its flash. If you don't already have a small flash and/or poverty wizards, you've got a few wireless options. The aforementioned poverty wizards, or Cactus radio triggers are only $20 for a trigger and receiver set, but they have terrible build quality and are not 100% reliable -- you'll have misfires occasionally. From there, you can go for Skyports, CyberSyncs, or the industry standard Pocket Wizards.

dakana posted:

For people looking into AlienBees, something to consider is that there is a 10% discount off of your entire order if you are a U.S. student. This applies to all students, not just photography/art majors.

Luk3 posted:

With that package, how do you attach the umbrellas to the lightstand / strobe? With hotshoe setups you have an umbrella swivel that you attach the umbrella to, what is the equivalent here?

It was mentioned that the accessories at alienbees aren't that great. Is it worth it to just buy the strobes on this site and get the umbrellas / stands / etc elsewhere?

What is the best method for triggering the strobes wirelessly?

As for remote power packs, is the vegabond the best solution? Is there something cheaper that isn't crap?

ConfusedUs posted:

I've got one of those five-section Bogen lightstands Strobist is always going on about and I love it. The thing is tiny, weighs next to nothing, but the legs are sturdy and you can sandbag the gently caress out of it (or, as I usually do, have my assistant hold it).

evil_bunnY posted:

I had to carry bags quite a few years ago (photography internship in high school), and they're a bitch and a half. Tossing a hundred pounds of bagged stands on your back on the other hand is no problem if the bags are padded properly.

brad industry posted:

The larger Pelican cases have big, sturdy handles that pull out so you can roll them. I just balance the other bags against that. I almost always have an assistant to help with that kind of stuff.

I would never put a bunch of poo poo on my back (or let an assistant do it), a lot of lighting stuff is heavy and that's a bad habit.. even a lot of the smaller Pelican cases have wheels so there's no reason to not just roll things when possible.

brad industry posted:

The big Pelican case in that pic I posted on the last page is a 1650 which holds 3 WL heads, I think it's about ~$100. You could probably fit 3-4 AB heads in it or the Vagabond (which has a strap so it's fairly easy to carry).

SoundMonkey posted:

I clearly need to get a car. I should probably get some kind of medal for hauling my camera bag, light stand, and now AB400 on the bus. Luckily my next shoot is very close to home. Unluckily, it's in the hallway of a college, so I'll probably have all kinds of issues with light bouncing around like a motherfucker.

torgeaux posted:

The OP could mention more of the daylight balanced CFLs that are widely available/cheap. The advantage they have for constant light is much lower heat, and much better color temp.

baptism of fiber posted:

How do people go about setting up/metering a shoot with 1 or more strobes? Do serious/professional flash photographers user TTL-networked flashes? Spot meters? Charts with distances and power settings? Eyeball, test-shot, and adjust?

I've read a decent chunk of the strobist articles, but as I understand it, his is a fairly atypical approach.

SoundMonkey posted:

The thing is, I'm going to look like a retard with all this stuff in separate bags. What do you on-location-monolight pros do? Attach bags to other bags? Get an assistant to carry some?

SoundMonkey posted:

So, yeah. Just bounce your flash off something and watch it look less terrible.

Arinel posted:

Ergh, AlienBees only ships to US/Canada, I suppose that is to be expected. Any helpful hints for the Australian? Like a good distributor in Australia for lighting (specifically AlienBees because they sound like what I am into).

SoundMonkey posted:

I think it's time for an example!

In the OP, I mentioned bouncing your flash off the ceiling/whatever. It sounds like a pain in the rear end, but really, the results speak for themselves. Both of these shots were with my D200, using a Sunpak 433D (battery-powered hotshoe flash) in thyristor auto mode. I paid $15 for that flash, by the way. My model is asleep, so you get one of her dumb little figurines.

First shot: Flash is hitting the subject head-on. Note the ugly shadows and lack of depth in the face.


Second shot: Flash is shooting about 70 degrees, pointing behind and to the right of me, using the ceiling and opposite wall for bounce. Note that you can actually see depth on the face, and it just looks nicer.


So, yeah. Just bounce your flash off something and watch it look less terrible.

Mannequin posted:

[CFL arrays] ...how do these compare to monolights or proper strobes? Are they basically super cheap and usually ignored or are they used often? I was wondering if I should get another one since it really was pretty drat cheap.

Arinel posted:

Ergh, AlienBees only ships to US/Canada, I suppose that is to be expected.

notlodar posted:

evil_bunnY posted:

You didn't have a single picture with no crazies? 8D

Cannister posted:

Brad, you've mentioned model lights quite a bit. I can't say I know what the eff that is. Could you help me out with that?

Cannister posted:

Brad, you've mentioned model lights quite a bit. I can't say I know what the eff that is. Could you help me out with that?

brad industry posted:

Really they are only useful in a dark studio - I mostly use mine as indicators for when the heads have recycled (the modeling lights turn off until they ready to fire again).

Cannister posted:

Have any of the owners/users of these or other studio lights ever run into the situation where you are unable to, say, achieve a shallow enough DOF as a result of having to close up the aperture too much? Are they ever simply too powerful and you've had to swap down to a hotshoe?

brad industry posted:

Cannister, my WL's go down to 1/128 and I don't think I've ever turned them down that low. You can always throw some ND filters on them to decrease the power if you want to do a shallow DOF.

notlodar posted:

WLs have to be a few feet away from the subject at ISO100, F1.4, 1/128 power, with the default reflector without ND filters. You can get closer with other modifiers...

Cannister posted:

Aha. For some reason I had this concept that monolights (these are monolights, right?) were these super powerful things so 1/32 would be like the equivalent of 1/2 power on a hotshoe (all I know).

Thanks for all the responses. Son of a BITCH now I want Alien Bees (or White Lightnings even) real bad. Real bad.

Cannister posted:

Aha. For some reason I had this concept that monolights (these are monolights, right?) were these super powerful things so 1/32 would be like the equivalent of 1/2 power on a hotshoe (all I know).

Thanks for all the responses. Son of a BITCH now I want Alien Bees (or White Lightnings even) real bad. Real bad.

brad industry posted:

w/s are totally meaningless. It's like measuring how fast a car is by how much gas it burns.

The AB and WL lines have the same inner circuitry poo poo so they are comparable but between brands it's a guess at best.

notlodar posted:

I have noticed that w/s are a good indicator when it comes to background lighting, very dependent on what you are trying to do.

Every light is different. The 60ish w/s of my speetlites is my guess against how it fares against WLs. I don't know of a more scientific way of looking at it.

quote:

From what the people at Paul C Buff, Inc told me, the basic circuitry of the current WL and the AB is the same, the differences being primarily in physical and thermal robustness.

The AB circuitry is on two boards relatively close together in the shell; the WL circuitry (same basic design) is spread across four boards in a larger shell. I speculate that makes it easier to cool.

The WL 1600 and 3200 units have a 1/4 power step down control. This enables them to be more consistent at very low power than the single-stage adjustment of the AB, according to my tests. However, both of them are well equal to the consistency you'll find in any other flash unit anywhere close to their price ranges. You have to double the price to get any better consistency...and you have to check the specs carefully even then--don't expect more money to automatically buy better consistency. The WL 1600 and 3200 lights also go to a much lower power than the AB lights because of the 1/4 power button.

The AB has a 1/8-inch mono sync jack; the WL has a 1/4-inch stereo sync jack (it's really only two poles, but you need a stereo plug with both the barrel and the ring grounded to make the connection correctly). The WL shell is solid aluminum while the AB shell is Lexan. That makes the WL physically tougher, but in practice, it actually takes quite a serious whack to break the Lexan--and I doubt the circuits of either can stand that many gees. It would probably make a difference under a PRESSURE situation, like boxes (or luggage) stacked on the lights. I'd expect the Lexan would eventually deflect enough to bend something inside, where the WL would resist the pressure.

The stand mount of the WL is cast and machined aluminum; the mount of the AB is polycarbonate. I note that Paul Buff sells replacement mounts for the AB, which suggests they can be broken--although I've never broken one.

The WL has a 250 watt modeling light; the AB comes with a 100 watt lamp that most people immediately replace with 150 watt Phillips Halogenas from Lowes or Home Depot (perfectly safe, according to AlienBees). The company also states that a 250 volt bulb can be used on AlienBees IF it's used in an open-air situation, like an umbrella or very large softbox...but I'd be very wary of a small softbox. Paul Buff says that the eventual damage of using a 250 watt bulb is to the bulb socket itself.

Obviously, the fact that the WL has a better thermally protective design is the difference there. In practice, 150-watts is more than adequate for the kind of living room portraits the ABs are best suited for. If you're doing commercial work and lighting larger sets, you want the WL modeling light power.

The WL has separate manual controls for the flash and modeling power while the AB has a single control for them both. That's pretty much a matter of individual taste, but the WL levers are directly parallel to each other, so it's just as easy to flick them both simultaneously with the same finger as it is to manipulate the single AB lever.

The "modern" style of low-to-mid-priced studio flash units is flat membrane buttons and LED power level displays, but I find these levers to have much better useability in the real world. Membrane buttons and LED displays require the user to have a direct view of the rear panel. In practice, the rear panel is often above eye level and pointing upwards, which would make it difficult to operate membrane buttons or see an LED display. The AB and WL controls are operable by feel even when 'way over your head.

The WL has a thermal-controlled fan--it comes on when necessary (which always tends to be "eventually" on a long job); the AB has a constant-on fan. The AB fan is a bit quieter and lower in pitch than the WL fan, but neither is objectionable--I have a laptop that has a louder fan.

The fingers of the WL reflector mount are cast and machined; the AB fingers are slightly less substantial stamped metal. The method of actuating the fingers is also mechanically more efficient on the WL than the AB (that is, has a greater mechanical advantage to stay clamped). Also, the WL reflector mount is screwed into the aluminum housing; the AB reflector mount is screwed into the Lexan. Those two differences mean the WL can theoretically hold a far heavier light modifier than the AB. However, the AB mount is no wimp, and, again, it can hold just about anything you'd use for the living-room portraiture it's designed for.

The WL lights are heavier and longer than the AB lights--substantially so in the higher wattages.

Finally, the AB's Lexan shell and polycarbonate stand mount means it can't drain off static electricity as readily as the WL's aluminum shell and aluminum mount. Some people have reported that under very dry and stacticky conditions, they've gotten spurious flashes when they touched an AB after walking across a carpeted floor; this should not be a problem for the WL--the aluminum shell is directly grounded through the power cable.

All in all, I'd categorize the differences as being compact/lightweight versus tough/high endurance. If you work constantly on location (as I did for a good while), the compactness and light weight of the AB units is very important. If you carry, say, four or five lights on location, it's as little as half the weight with AB units. The low cost helps, too, because while ABs take a licking and still keep ticking, I would shed fewer tears if a truck backed over my ABs than my WLs.

In small-set situations like most portraits, the AB modeling lights are adequate. But if you're doing larger-set commercial work, if you need lights that can flash all day long, day in and day out week after week, and weight isn't such a factor for you, then the White Lightning has advantages.

Either unit becomes positively glorious when combined with the Radio Remote 1 for digital, wireless control of the modeling lights and flash power. I can't trumpet loudly enough about the utility of the RR-1--you can't get remote control this effective at ANY price.

notlodar posted:

I don't know of a more scientific way of looking at it.

TsarAleksi posted:

I like the modeling lights 'cause that way I can make sure the strobes are turned on... because I'm dumb.

I'm hoping that I can use the modeling lights as hotlights for shooting video in the future.