Spend my money elinchrom or lenscarta

Status
Not open for further replies.
Graham W said:
But perhaps not everyone else does. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah. And just ignore the fact that a softbox has two diffusing baffles which a brolly does not, so clearly the light from the two is not the same.

Totally ignore that it's bloody difficult to fix a grid onto a brolly and control light. First black background set up, will soon find out why that's important.

Whatever.
 
I'd rather listen to Garry's comment than someone who has been in the trade about five minutes!
 
DG Phototraining said:
I had an Elinchrom D-Lite 2 kits for years (well 2 of them actually) worked fine - modifiers cost a fortune though

If I was buying again - Lencarta - and yes as Phil says, ask for a swap to the more appropriate gear :)

I wouldn't ask that Garry Edwards chap anything though, he's biased lol

Dave
Click to expand...

Hey DG
Why don'y you look at Bessel for the modifiers. Their Elinchrom ones are great value.
 
JennyGW said:
One other thing. You only want to be using umbrellas with strobes when you HAVE to. Softboxes, in my opinion, give a much better (softer) light.
Click to expand...

I think a softbok really just controls the light better - A brolly spills light everywhere and a softbox provides more direction and control - It's not softer (given the size of the light source relative to the subject remains the same).
 
JennyGW said:
Yeah. And just ignore the fact that a softbox has two diffusing baffles which a brolly does not, so clearly the light from the two is not the same.

Totally ignore that it's bloody difficult to fix a grid onto a brolly and control light. First black background set up, will soon find out why that's important.

Whatever.
Click to expand...

Missed this one :)

The answer to which is better though depends on how you are using it - You're right you wouldn't use a brolly to provide light on a black background, but if you want light to be spread over a larger area, you would probably want to use a brolly....... Horses for courses.

Regards the softbox inner baffle, what that does is spread the light inside to diffuse the hot spot. It doesn't make the light softer which is only about the size of the light source relative to the size of the subject.
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
Yeah. And just ignore the fact that a softbox has two diffusing baffles which a brolly does not, so clearly the light from the two is not the same.

Totally ignore that it's bloody difficult to fix a grid onto a brolly and control light. First black background set up, will soon find out why that's important.

Whatever.
Click to expand...
It's all horses for courses. There is no such thing as a 'good', 'bad' or 'better' lighting modifier because every single one of them has both strengths and weaknesses.
And soft light is neither good nor bad, it's a fact of life that most beginners seem to think that the softer a light is, the better, but as people gain in experience they usually use the whole gamut of modifiers and effects, to get the best from their subjects.
And it depends on context too - even the much maligned shoot through umbrellas, which tend to spill light in all directions and which because of this can produce very uncontrolled light in tiny spaces with white ceilings and walls, can produce pretty controlled lighting in a large studio with black walls and a high ceiling.
And sometimes, there is simply no commercially available modifier that can do a specific job, for example if you want to produce a graduated specular reflection on the front element of a lens, then the only way to do that is to make up a scrim and light it in a controlled but uneven way.

In the final analysis, it mainly comes down to
1. Skill
2. Experience
3. Knowledge (of how light works)

And of these, knowledge always trumps skill and experience.Which is why I always advocate Light: Science and Magic (or, for people who are even more interested in the physics side, The science of imaging)
It's also a fact that people who have a real understanding of lighting can use their knowledge creatively, and this knowledge allows them to use light modifiers that, on the face of it, aren't suitable for the job - in other words, knowledge can often replace hardware.

Speaking of which, there has been a lot of discussion about softbox honeycombs on this forum. They are, without a doubt, very useful, and everyone who has been to my studio will know that I often use them - but, for many years we had to manage without them because they didn't exist. Instead, we used flags, mainly Cinefoil, which in many ways can be better because flags control the unwanted spread of light without affecting the quality of the light that is wanted. Then, maybe about 15 years ago, I was asked to test a range of honeycombs that were being developed by an American Company, this took several months and eventually they launched a complete range in various flavours - very expensive but very good - and as I had got them free, I used them. Since then, because they are a low-tech, easily produced product, the original idea has been copied and re-copied many times, with the result that most of the cheap (and bundled) ones are useless. But, even the good ones that actually work should in fact only been used when necessary, never routinely, and whenever there is a conflict between the need to control the light and the need to produce even lighting, the correct answer is always not to use the honeycomb and to use knowledge instead.
 
Iceax said:
Pressed the button:

Smart flash 2 kit
Octo softbox
Backdrop stand

- busy weekend making space in the office for it all, next up some new glass!
Click to expand...

Excellent choice - I have the Smartflash set up (3 x v1 and 1 v2) - great bit of kit
 
Garry Edwards said:
And it depends on context too - even the much maligned shoot through umbrellas, which tend to spill light in all directions and which because of this can produce very uncontrolled light in tiny spaces with white ceilings and walls, can produce pretty controlled lighting in a large studio with black walls and a high ceiling.
Click to expand...

Exactly. For external work brollies are probably my preferred mod, because they are easiest to tether!
 
EOS_JD said:
Missed this one :)

The answer to which is better though depends on how you are using it - You're right you wouldn't use a brolly to provide light on a black background, but if you want light to be spread over a larger area, you would probably want to use a brolly....... Horses for courses.

Regards the softbox inner baffle, what that does is spread the light inside to diffuse the hot spot. It doesn't make the light softer which is only about the size of the light source relative to the size of the subject.
Click to expand...

You need to look up Softbox 101 and Umbrella 101 on Youtube and see how each modifier and size of modifier actually spreads light.
 
EOS_JD said:
I think a softbok really just controls the light better - A brolly spills light everywhere and a softbox provides more direction and control - It's not softer (given the size of the light source relative to the subject remains the same).
Click to expand...

Then what the heck are those two diffusing baffles doing? And how about the grid?
 
Jenny - seriously - you are digging a whopping great hole for yourself here.
 
JennyGW said:
You need to look up Softbox 101 and Umbrella 101 on Youtube and see how each modifier and size of modifier actually spreads light.
Click to expand...
Jenny, all modifiers spread light to a greater or lesser degree.
But the spread of light is totally irrelevant to your argument anyway, all that actually matters is the area (size) of the light, not its spread or, more accurately, the size of the light relative to the size of the subject, which of course is governed by the Inverse Square Law in that if you move the source twice as far away its relative size is reduced to a quarter.

With the greatest possible respect, if you want to advance technical arguments about lighting you first need to understand the technical properties - you can do that by studying physics, or by experimentation - but you probably won't learn much from the average youtube video:)
 
JennyGW said:
Then what the heck are those two diffusing baffles doing? And how about the grid?
Click to expand...

As I understand it mainly they're helping reduce hot spots, the design of a softbox is going to be more directional than a reflective umbrella as most are now recessed and of course you can add a grid but the softbox needs those diffusers as most designs have the flash pointing toward the subject while the reflective umbrella will have the head pointing away.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Jenny, all modifiers spread light to a greater or lesser degree.
But the spread of light is totally irrelevant to your argument anyway, all that actually matters is the area (size) of the light, not its spread or, more accurately, the size of the light relative to the size of the subject, which of course is governed by the Inverse Square Law in that if you move the source twice as far away its relative size is reduced to a quarter.

With the greatest possible respect, if you want to advance technical arguments about lighting you first need to understand the technical properties - you can do that by studying physics, or by experimentation - but you probably won't learn much from the average youtube video:)
Click to expand...

I understand them perfectly well enough to correct you, time and time again.
 
simonbarker said:
As I understand it mainly they're helping reduce hot spots, the design of a softbox is going to be more directional than a reflective umbrella as most are now recessed and of course you can add a grid but the softbox needs those diffusers as most designs have the flash pointing toward the subject while the reflective umbrella will have the head pointing away.
Click to expand...

I suggest you actually do it and test it and see the difference for yourself.
 
JennyGW said:
I understand them perfectly well enough to correct you, time and time again.
Click to expand...

I've been listening to Garry's advice because of his decades in the industry and experience with lighting.

I WILL also listen to others on the basis of their experience/credentials. Unless you have similar experience, other than quoting you tube 101 videos, it begins to sound like a personal thing.

Also (with my science hat on) it's hard to argue with physics!

S
 
ding76uk said:
Why don't you do it, post up a tutorial & help people see your (IMO flawed) point of view. Or just shut up arguing. Either one is fine.
Click to expand...

Because I already posted about two tutorials that explain it perfectly well. Suggest you read what I say if you intend to comment on it.
 
Sir SR said:
I've been listening to Garry's advice because of his decades in the industry and experience with lighting.

I WILL also listen to others on the basis of their experience/credentials. Unless you have similar experience, other than quoting you tube 101 videos, it begins to sound like a personal thing.

Also (with my science hat on) it's hard to argue with physics!

S
Click to expand...

I quoted the 101 videos because you wouldn't believe me and they prove categorically what you seemed determined not to believe.
 
One is for softboxes, one is for umbrellas. Perhaps you can work that bit out on your own. The videos have been posted on these forums before, not by me that time. Perhaps if you find the post where someone else linked them you'll be able to view them with an open mind - first time for everything.

You really need to learn to think for yourselves. Sure, I've not been doing lighting for long, but I did pick up my first camera 44 years ago. Since learning lighting I have read books and forums, watched a lot of videos and, most importantly, found out through practice and experience what works for me.


 
JennyGW said:
I quoted the 101 videos because you wouldn't believe me and they prove categorically what you seemed determined not to believe.
Click to expand...

Please address the right people.

I never stated that I didn't believe you.....

Also the tone of your messages is unnecessarily aggressive.

I wouldn't dream of telling you to "learn to read" even though it could be applied to your response above.

S
 
Sir SR said:
Please address the right people.

I never stated that I didn't believe you.....

Also the tone of your messages is unnecessarily aggressive.

I wouldn't dream of telling you to "learn to read" even though it could be applied to your response above.

S
Click to expand...

I am bring spoken to aggressively, again. What do you expect? a doormat? Those people who the reply was aimed at know who they are.

You tell me I'm rude when I get messages like, "Because her photos and knowledge aren't up to it. It's as simple as that." which you completely overlook, very selective of you.

Then you end your missive with, "though it could be applied to your response above", an insult.

I have noticed countless people have left these forums because of the attitudes I am finding here. It's a shame because I am sure they were the ones worth keeping!
 
JennyGW said:
Because I already posted about two tutorials that explain it perfectly well. Suggest you read what I say if you intend to comment on it.
Click to expand...

You linked to two videos, well done. I can read fine thanks very much. I also understand the basics of the inverse square law and physics, something you appear to be struggling with. Rather than arguing with everyone, maybe try to explain yourself a little clearer as you are coming off as someone who is unwilling to listen and no matter how long you have been photographing that is something that does not lead anywhere worthwhile.
 
I just got a pm from Jenny. Though you all might to see:

http://www.166photography.co.uk/#!/index/G0000Brxvg9Trmjc/I0000zBo6kOqQcVg

If you are going to put down other peoples experience you might want to: 1. Learn to light. 2. Learn to retouch.



Isn't that nice of her to call my work out like that. As I replied. Show your work Jenny if you claim to be the oracle of retouching and lighting and can do better.

I also mentioned I made a lot of money on that shoot and the client was very happy. Not sure extensive beauty retouching of a family portrait is what is called for, or what the family wanted, but hey why let the truth get in the way of a good dig, Jenny? So, put up or shut up. Show us your work.
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
I am bring spoken to aggressively, again. What do you expect? a doormat? Those people who the reply was aimed at know who they are.

You tell me I'm rude when I get messages like, "Because her photos and knowledge aren't up to it. It's as simple as that." which you completely overlook, very selective of you.

Then you end your missive with, "though it could be applied to your response above", an insult.

I have noticed countless people have left these forums because of the attitudes I am finding here. It's a shame because I am sure they were the ones worth keeping!
Click to expand...

Ok. You're coming across as an argumentative person looking to see the bad in everything. I'm sure that in real life, you're not. Nature of forums I guess.

I agree that actually you were provoked, but you can still be the better person?!

Sir SR said:
Please address the right people.

I never stated that I didn't believe you.....

Also the tone of your messages is unnecessarily aggressive.

I wouldn't dream of telling you to "learn to read" even though it could be applied to your response above.

S
Click to expand...

Also, please read the whole of the sentence that you quoted. I was pointing out that technically I could tell you to learn to read, as I never said that I didn't believe you, but it could be applied to your response.

Whatever message you are trying to put across is being lost because of the way you deliver it.

S
 
Mind you at £120 for an hour and a half with 5 retouched shots, what would you expect?
 
JennyGW said:
You need to look up Softbox 101 and Umbrella 101 on Youtube and see how each modifier and size of modifier actually spreads light.
Click to expand...
I can see you clearly understand it ;)
 
OK, this all seems to be getting very personal and unpleasant, let me make some comments that i hope are objective...

Jenny's work. Be fair about this, she hasn't linked to her work and asked for opinions of it so perhaps we shouldn't be critical of it.
Whether or not it demonstrates a good understanding of the use of light or not, whether the shots are technically and/or artistically good or not and whether or not they demonstrate that she knows what she's talking about isn't really the point. The point, as I see it, is that she tasks herself with the job of showing what actors actually do look like, and what they can look like, and these are the kind of photos they need to be considered for jobs. And she's getting them to pay for her service, and whether she is making a tiny amount of money or a lot, it is in fact quite an achievement to get struggling actors to pay anything at all, they're in a bit like wannabe models in that they always know someone who will take photos for free, and often don't see any need to pay. They are also part of a culture in which everyone does a lot of free work in order to get seen, and so ends up thinking that other people should work for free too.

The videos.
1. Youtube is a great resource for learning about many things, especially technical ones. As some of you may know, my hobby is shooting. And when I wanted to know how to service the action of my 1871 Martini Henry rifle, a pretty rare beast, I found at least 4 videos that showed me exactly how to do it - great. But photography isn't really a very technical subject and as a result there are loads of videos out there that give out very wrong information - and it takes someone who is pretty knowledgeable to spot the fakes, which makes life difficult for the target audience of these fakes - because if they had the knowledge they need to realise that they're fakes then they wouldn't be watching them in the first place...

2. It is actually quite hard to make a good educational video, I know because I've tried, many times, and have now virtually given up in the sense that my own videos are now all associated with much more detailed written tutorials which, in my opinion at least, contain the meat that goes onto the video's bones.

3. Video compresses time, everything looks so easy and trouble free when sequences and processes are cut out (usually at the editing stage) to make it look more interesting. And, usually, the video camera can't even be in the right place, so the viewpoint is wrong and the viewer can't see what the presenter/photographer is seeing.

4. There's a tendency to edit out bits of the video that don't look right, even if those bits are in fact essential.

5. Most videos are shot and published for a purpose, either to sell products, or subscriptions, for self promotion or perhaps just to make the author feel and look important. Before digital video and before the internet, publishing was very expensive and people usually had to be pretty good to find a publisher for their work, so it was possible to have at least some confidence in their knowledge base - but no more, because literally anyone can set themselves up to be an expert on Youtube, and many do.

Which leads me on to the videos that Jenny linked to. Personally I didn't find either of them even remotely useful, helpful or accurate and if I wanted to be nasty I might wonder just how much the presenter actually understands about the subject. But, even if I'm totally wrong about the efficacy of those videos, I don't believe that they are in any way relevant to what Jenny is saying about lighting.

So, in short, I don't believe that Jenny has the handle on lighting that she thinks she has - but then, in a world where there is no real, accepted and measurable way of judging people's expertise, none of us are truly experts because photographers are just a random, disparate group of people who develop their various skills and knowledge in a host of different ways, and all of us tend to be judged not on our true capabilities and knowledge, but on whether or people like the style of work that we do - which is just a subjective judgement anyway.
 
Why do you feel the need to be so aggressive Jenny? It only feeds the fire. It's sorta painful to watch. I realize this comment has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but you've come into this with both guns firing from the beginning. You don't have to agree with anything anyone says, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. And there's always the option to just walk away from it...
 
JennyGW said:
When you have progressed beyond flat lighting maybe you'll be in a position to make better comments.
Click to expand...


I provide what the customer requests. In the case of 95% of the headshots/portraits currently on my website that's exactly what was asked for and being a staff photographer, that's exactly what I provided.
I don't let my own ego get in the way of business.


However back lighting a bloke with poor skin and post processing the eyes so much that they look out of focus is pretty unforgivable.
There'd be no point in me linking to your feedback, because you'd never post a bad one. Your customers are not likely to notice the difference.
However, those headshots represent their livelihood and most agencies and casting panel certainly will pick up on stuff like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top