Godox ad 200 for portraits?

middlearthimages said:
Hi,

Are 2 godox ad 200's suitable for group photos and if so how many in a group would they do with good results?

Thanks,

john
Click to expand...

Yes.

It's difficult to give a better answer without much more information.
Indoor or outdoor? How much natural light? Any scope for bouncing off walls? What sort of people - kids or folk who'll sit still? What sort of portrait? What style of lighting? What sort of modifiers?
 
They're as suitable as any mains power flash with the same power output, and can "do" as many as any mains powered flash - they have enough power, and can be used with the same modifiers.

But, if you're only going to use them indoors, it would make much more sense to buy mains powered flash heads - much lower cost and faster recycling.
 
Garry Edwards said:
They're as suitable as any mains power flash with the same power output, and can "do" as many as any mains powered flash - they have enough power, and can be used with the same modifiers.

But, if you're only going to use them indoors, it would make much more sense to buy mains powered flash heads - much lower cost and faster recycling.
Click to expand...
Hi gary,

i want to use them for small groups at weddings and possible outdoors too.

regards,
john
 
middlearthimages said:
Hi it will be indoors and about 5 to 6 people.
Click to expand...
Used with moderate sized softboxes (~90cm) for fill lighting they are more than adequate. But if trying to kill the ambient (or if there is no ambient) I think they are a bit small/underpowered for group photos... they can certainly provide enough light if used as a harder source.

I.e. they don't have enough power to fill softboxes large enough to provide soft light to a group of people from far enough away (full length). In a darker indoor situation you would probably be better off bouncing them (bare) to light a group as the primary light source. In both situations you'll need to use a high enough ISO so as to place the lights as fill... wide apertures aren't really an option.

Edit: there are a whole lot of other situations where the AD200 will be able to do an adequate job (or better). You just need to figure out what situation(s) will predominate.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
>SNIP
I.e. they don't have enough power to fill softboxes large enough to provide soft light to a group of people from far enough away (full length). In a darker indoor situation you would probably be better off bouncing them (bare) to light a group as the primary light source. In both situations you'll need to use a high enough ISO so as to place the lights as fill... wide apertures aren't really an option.

Edit: there are a whole lot of other situations where the AD200 will be able to do an adequate job (or better). You just need to figure out what situation(s) will predominate.
Click to expand...


?????Isn't ability to fill a softbox no matter size more a question about bulb design and dimensions of softbox, depth vs front area?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
?????Isn't ability to fill a softbox no matter size more a question about bulb design and dimensions of softbox, depth vs front area?
Click to expand...
Yes, and no. The comment wasn't so much about the ability to evenly fill/illuminate a larger modifier, but rather what you can do with it.

If you take an ad200 and fill a 6ft softbox it will have ~1/4 of the power/area at a given setting as it will if you use it to fill a 3ft softbox... And while the 6ft softbox will have a greater ability to provide softer light for a larger area, it won't be able to light from as far. Since we are talking about a group of 6 people we are talking about needing very large modifiers from fairly good distances if the goal is to use it as primary softish lighting (~10ft guesstimate; to manage falloff across/into the group). IMO, that is asking too much from a 200WS strobe.

Now if you don't need it for primary or soft light, then you don't need as large of a modifier/as much power and the AD200 is more suitable.
 
mike weeks said:
Then they are perfect

Mike
Click to expand...

...is the short answer to the question (y)

The amount of power needed for a softbox to work well hasn't got much to do directly with it's physical size, but more to do with the area of the light pool it projects. However, in practise, big softboxes are relatively shallower designs than smaller ones, so they project light over a wider angle and therefore over a greater area, so brightness will be lower at a given distance.

On the other hand, if you had a very large softbox that was also very deep, projecting a narrower pool of light, it would be just as bright as a smaller softbox, eg a big parabolic.
 
HoppyUK said:
...is the short answer to the question (y)

The amount of power needed for a softbox to work well hasn't got much to do directly with it's physical size, but more to do with the area of the light pool it projects. However, in practise, big softboxes are relatively shallower designs than smaller ones, so they project light over a wider angle and therefore over a greater area, so brightness will be lower at a given distance.

On the other hand, if you had a very large softbox that was also very deep, projecting a narrower pool of light, it would be just as bright as a smaller softbox, eg a big parabolic.
Click to expand...
I'm not tracking...
The size of the softbox and it's relation to power is the ISL. The basic design/depth of a softbox is of little relevance assuming it provides for even illumination of the diffusion material.
 
sk66 said:
I'm not tracking...
The size of the softbox and it's relation to power is the ISL. The basic design/depth of a softbox is of little relevance assuming it provides for even illumination of the diffusion material.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's inverse-square-law effects. Kind of. Try this:

If you have two softboxes, a big and a small, and each is an exact scale replica of the other - same design, same shape and angles, same material, same diffusers in the same positions etc - then from the same distance they would project a similar size pool of light of roughly similar brightness. Okay, the larger softbox would be less bright due to greater internal losses, but not much.

However, I'm not sure two such exact scale replicas exist, because larger softboxes have a relatively shallower profile to prevent them becoming impractically huge and unwieldy. Therefore, the larger softbox will spread light over a larger angle and create a larger pool of light from the same distance. This is the main reason why larger softboxes are less bright in practise.

Very hard to prove and I'll admit there are some assumptions and guesswork going on in this theory. I'd be interested in your take on it :)
 
DG Phototraining said:
2 though indoors, for only 5-6 people?

Surely one is enough as even if the softbox eats power you can just up the ISO a bit

Dave
Click to expand...
Yes.
From 3m distance @1/8 power in a 7' white reflective Westcott with diffuser my AD360 output enough light for f4 @100iso, f11 @ full power or around f8 from an AD200 @full power give and take.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HoppyUK said:
Very hard to prove and I'll admit there are some assumptions and guesswork going on in this theory. I'd be interested in your take on it :)
Click to expand...
I believe that the reason a modifier of any size (same design/efficiency) will cast the same size pattern of light with the same intensity *when used on a light at the same distance* is because the larger modifier is farther from the source. I.e. the *size* of the source is the bulb and the diffusion is placed at a distance for even fill using the same spread of light (plus reflection to minimize losses). This is most easily demonstrated using umbrellas...
But if the diffusion is placed at the same distance instead, then that doesn't hold true. However, once diffused they are both inefficient and scatter the light widely and the difference in the distance of the source (bulb) to the subject are generally pretty small unless the change in size is drastic... so the differences may be hard to distinguish. Plus, I doubt that any two have exactly the same design/efficiency.
 
sk66 said:
I believe that the reason a modifier of any size (same design/efficiency) will cast the same size pattern of light with the same intensity *when used on a light at the same distance* is because the larger modifier is farther from the source. I.e. the *size* of the source is the bulb and the diffusion is placed at a distance for even fill using the same spread of light (plus reflection to minimize losses). This is most easily demonstrated using umbrellas...
But if the diffusion is placed at the same distance instead, then that doesn't hold true. However, once diffused they are both inefficient and scatter the light widely and the difference in the distance of the source (bulb) to the subject are generally pretty small unless the change in size is drastic... so the differences may be hard to distinguish. Plus, I doubt that any two have exactly the same design/efficiency.
Click to expand...

Fair analysis, and probably as good as we're likely to get (y) There are so many changes going on it's very hard isolate every factor. I think the flaw in what I wrote earlier, which is probably right as far as it goes, is that actually the internal losses also account for more than I'd allowed.

Bottom line for me is that on the rare occasions when I've had a really big softbox to use, you have to increase the flash power, but not as much as you might guess just by looking at the size of the thing. Not very scientific I know ;)
 
soeren said:
Yes.
From 3m distance @1/8 power in a 7' white reflective Westcott with diffuser my AD360 output enough light for f4 @100iso, f11 @ full power or around f8 from an AD200 @full power give and take.
Click to expand...
Starting from where?
My AD360 in my 4ft deep octa is good for ~8 stops of light from 6ft/2m. That would put it at ~5 stops in a 8ft octa from 9ft/3m (rough guestimates). And of course, that's only at the front edge of the subject/scene. If the grouping is 2 deep then it would be ~ 3/4stop less at the back. I haven't actually tested my AD200s, but they would be at least 1 stop behind (closer to two I would expect).

FWIW, it takes ~6 stops of light for a "correct" exposure (i.e. to put white at the rt side of the histogram starting from black).
 
HoppyUK said:
Fair analysis, and probably as good as we're likely to get (y) There are so many changes going on it's very hard isolate every factor. I think the flaw in what I wrote earlier, which is probably right as far as it goes, is that actually the internal losses also account for more than I'd allowed.

Bottom line for me is that on the rare occasions when I've had a really big softbox to use, you have to increase the flash power, but not as much as you might guess just by looking at the size of the thing. Not very scientific I know ;)
Click to expand...
One might logically think that you would need to increase the power 2 stops going from a 3ft softbox to a 6ft softbox applying the ISL, but that isn't the case. If the diffusion is kept at the same distance then the required power increase is for the added depth of the modifier i.e. distance of the bulb from the subject.
Just swagging numbers... if the diffusion is at 6ft and the bulb is at 8ft in the 3ft box, and switching to the 6ft box places the bulb at 10ft, then the power increase required would be ~.7 stop (f/8 to f/10).

Edit: of course this is all just theoretical... the realities make it even less exact which is why swagging things is good enough (especially w/ digital).
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Starting from where?
My AD360 in my 4ft deep octa is good for ~8 stops of light from 6ft/2m. That would put it at ~5 stops in a 8ft octa from 9ft/3m (rough guestimates). And of course, that's only at the front edge of the subject/scene. If the grouping is 2 deep then it would be ~ 3/4stop less at the back. I haven't actually tested my AD200s, but they would be at least 1 stop behind (closer to two I would expect).

FWIW, it takes ~6 stops of light for a "correct" exposure (i.e. to put white at the rt side of the histogram starting from black).
Click to expand...
That would be distance between meter and surface of umbrella diffusor. initially I would see how much power it took from a reasonable distance minimizing effects of the ISL. Hmm floor especially and to some extend the roof reflects light under my cramped conditions so never mind :( putting on thinkhat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
That would be distance between meter and surface of umbrella diffusor. initially I would see how much power it took from a reasonable distance minimizing effects of the ISL
Click to expand...
So ambient + strobe... that number/result is going to change situationally. That's why I like to get a good idea of capability in stops of light at full power from a known distance, then I can guestimate using the ISL in any situation (even when first adding the light)... I don't use handheld meters any more, it died and I never replaced it. That said, after a while you just kind of "get a feel for it" and that's usually good enough w/ digital.

In the video you linked Joe wound up using 4 speedlights with a pretty "hard" result, I'd guess that's roughly equivalent to the result from 2 AD200s in that situation (one in the umbrella and the other at reduced power as fill)... That's the thing with lighting that I see gets mixed up all of the time, you can't just change relative size/distance. You have to adjust actual size and distance for a given result. I.e. if you want to light a group of people with softish light and minimal falloff the modifier has to be both relatively larger *and* at a greater distance, which means it's physical size has to be exponentially larger. And all of that requires more power.

Don't get me wrong, I think "soft light" is overused/overrated... but the point is "what can be done/what do you want to accomplish." IMHO, for dim light or for killing the ambient the AD200 is marginal... it can probably do well enough for an individual/couple in many cases. For groups and those kinds of scenarios I would be more inclined to the AD600. For most anything else AD200s should be more than good enough.
 
sk66 said:
So ambient + strobe... that number/result is going to change situationally. That's why I like to get a good idea of capability in stops of light at full power from a known distance, then I can guestimate using the ISL in any situation (even when first adding the light)... I don't use handheld meters any more, it died and I never replaced it. That said, after a while you just kind of "get a feel for it" and that's usually good enough w/ digital.

In the video you linked Joe wound up using 4 speedlights with a pretty "hard" result, I'd guess that's roughly equivalent to the result from 2 AD200s in that situation (one in the umbrella and the other at reduced power as fill)... That's the thing with lighting that I see gets mixed up all of the time, you can't just change relative size/distance. You have to adjust actual size and distance for a given result. I.e. if you want to light a group of people with softish light and minimal falloff the modifier has to be both relatively larger *and* at a greater distance, which means it's physical size has to be exponentially larger. And all of that requires more power.

Don't get me wrong, I think "soft light" is overused/overrated... but the point is "what can be done/what do you want to accomplish." IMHO, for dim light or for killing the ambient the AD200 is marginal... it can probably do well enough for an individual/couple in many cases. For groups and those kinds of scenarios I would be more inclined to the AD600. For most anything else AD200s should be more than good enough.
Click to expand...
Ambient = reflected spill? Then yes
Yes I know I just like to throw in that video because of his remarks on reflectiveness of skin
Offcource it's kind off hard light due a fairly large distance but I agree with the comment on soft light being overrated
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
Ambient = reflected spill? Then yes
Yes I know I just like to throw in that video because of his remarks on reflectiveness of skin
Offcource it's kind off hard light due a fairly large distance but I agree with the comment on soft light being overrated
Click to expand...
When I say ambient I usually mean all uncontrolled light... i.e. unless the room was blacked out it would be ambient + reflected spill. Another way of looking at it is as "stops above black frame." I.e. if it's metering at f/11 then your black frame w/o the strobe would be about 3 stops less at f/4 and the light is giving you ~ 3 stops placing mid grey at mid exposure (actually f/4 probably wouldn't be completely black, just close enough... the DR capabilities at the dark end are quite impressive these days).

I think the result Joe got was rather marginal... good enough for "run and gun" type of work, not something to aspire for. But he ran out of time and did make some very good points, i.e. feathering the light attempting to compensate for falloff.
 
Last edited:
I think Joe did a decent job in the video, and he made the point early on that it's better to be 'fast and fun' than worrying about technical perfection. He 'made' the shot at the end by getting them to play that little game. Good subject/pose/expression trumps everything.

Along the way, checking that everyone in the group can see the camera with both eyes. And he mentioned feathering the main light so he could get reasonably even exposure across the group with the light off to one side creating some shadow modelling. Maybe he should have explained that a bit more. Reflector on the floor was another good and easy tip.
 
All very interesting, but I think that there's a danger of over thinking these things when using digital...
The reality is that modern digital camera technology is so good that most DSLR cameras can produce excellent image quality at 400 ISO (and many at much higher settings) so, as a 200Ws flash can be used at say f/11 at 400 ISO as an older camera, set to 100 ISO, with a 800Ws flash.
A few years ago, limitations of digital cameras meant that image quality was terrible at anything above 100 ISO, and so they needed to be used with powerful flashes.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think Joe did a decent job in the video, and he made the point early on that it's better to be 'fast and fun' than worrying about technical perfection.
Click to expand...
This is very true when working with people.
But it doesn't change the fact that better results (IMO) could have been achieved as quickly and easily, or even more-so, if he had started out with a more suitable setup... Chances are he pretty well knew what was going to happen and where it was going to go... and strobist/speedlighting is his thing/market, it would have been counter productive to take a different approach.
 
Garry Edwards said:
All very interesting, but I think that there's a danger of over thinking these things when using digital...
The reality is that modern digital camera technology is so good that most DSLR cameras can produce excellent image quality at 400 ISO (and many at much higher settings) so, as a 200Ws flash can be used at say f/11 at 400 ISO as an older camera, set to 100 ISO, with a 800Ws flash.
A few years ago, limitations of digital cameras meant that image quality was terrible at anything above 100 ISO, and so they needed to be used with powerful flashes.
Click to expand...
That was part of my initial response; use them with medium sized modifiers (or bounced) as "fill" using higher ISOs.
But that also affects everything else about the image; I wouldn't say that the 600/1200WS strobe is antiquated these days just because I can get acceptable results at ISO 3200.
 
Bought an AD200 yesterday on a Black Friday deal from Lencarta.
So just a bit cheaper than the usual importers, with the added bonus of a decent warranty :)

That’s phase 1 if my shift to Godox.
 
The assimilation has begun :LOL:
Planning on getting one next month
 
Canon brook said:
What was the deal Phil if you don’t mind me asking..... and which piece of your current kit do you intend to use it as a replacement for...[emoji106]
Click to expand...
It was £256 and I’ll be selling my AD360 mk1, with some accessories thrown in.

I rarely use the 360 at max power, I’ve got a Safari2 for bright conditions. The AD200 will create an easier VAL experience.
 
sk66 said:
That was part of my initial response; use them with medium sized modifiers (or bounced) as "fill" using higher ISOs.
But that also affects everything else about the image; I wouldn't say that the 600/1200WS strobe is antiquated these days just because I can get acceptable results at ISO 3200.
Click to expand...
And I agree with you - powerful units are far from obsolete in large pro studios, and are essential with large format cameras - but this is a tiny part of the market, and within the UK it's miniscule.
The world has already moved to small, low powered units (largely because of the improvements to digital camera technology that I've already mentioned, partly because most studio photographers today are self-taught, partly because of an overall (and massive) increase in the number or shots taken and a perceived need to be the cheapest - and this will continue for another couple of years or so. After that, there will be even more radical changes and I forsee that some very well known, premium brands will be no more.
Phil V said:
Bought an AD200 yesterday on a Black Friday deal from Lencarta.
So just a bit cheaper than the usual importers, with the added bonus of a decent warranty :)

That’s phase 1 if my shift to Godox.
Click to expand...
Good choice, especially as the AD200 is now very much part of a system
 
Phil V said:
Bought an AD200 yesterday on a Black Friday deal from Lencarta.
So just a bit cheaper than the usual importers, with the added bonus of a decent warranty :)

That’s phase 1 if my shift to Godox.
Click to expand...
Probably not applicable to most here, but I just picked up a V860II from Adorama @25% off ($134 delivered) a few days ago (delivered yesterday).
I now have AD360, 2 AD200, 1 V860II, X-Pro N... just need to eventually get an X1R, AD-B2, and probably V860 spare battery...

I still have my bigger studio stuff. It's not getting much use as of late, but I don't see a need/want for an AD600 at the moment.
 
sk66 said:
Probably not applicable to most here, but I just picked up a V860II from Adorama @25% off ($134 delivered) a few days ago (delivered yesterday).
I now have AD360, 2 AD200, 1 V860II, X-Pro N... just need to eventually get an X1R, AD-B2, and probably V860 spare battery...

I still have my bigger studio stuff. It's not getting much use as of late, but I don't see a need/want for an AD600 at the moment.
Click to expand...
You probably don't need one at all
Interesting find about the larger one vs AD360
https://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&sour...AQxa8BCCQwAA&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov
 
Garry Edwards said:
The world has already moved to small, low powered units
Click to expand...
I'm as guilty as any... :) Mostly because what I'm mostly using the kit for is field work... but also because it's so cheap these days.

I'm not sure I understand what the relevance of being self taught is... unless you mean the big "strobist" trend and marketing/tutorials.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I'm as guilty as any... :) Mostly because what I'm mostly using the kit for is field work... but also because it's so cheap these days.

I'm not sure I understand what the relevance of being self taught is... unless you mean the big "strobist" trend and marketing/tutorials.
Click to expand...

I've found that self-taught often means a quite narrow sphere of experience. Typically just a DSLR, a couple of lenses and a speedlight, used on whatever subjects come your way. Sometimes the range of subjects is pretty limited to, when photography is used alongside another hobby interest like motorsport or wildlife or whatever. Applies to some professionals too, who often do a lot of the same kind of work.

You can to learn what you need to know for that easily enough, but if I hadn't been to college and worked in a few professional studios I would have very little experience of medium format, zero knowledge of large format, and know next to nothing about proper studio lighting, working to a client brief or with professional models, or the whole business of professional photography in general. Over the years, that knowledge has come in very useful.
 
sk66 said:
Won't open for me...
Click to expand...
Sorry I seem not to be able to link from this unit :(
Gavin Holy did some portraits in sunlit conditions with different lights among them an AD600 which did not do much more than an AD360
 
HoppyUK said:
I've found that self-taught often means a quite narrow sphere of experience. Typically just a DSLR, a couple of lenses and a speedlight, used on whatever subjects come your way. Sometimes the range of subjects is pretty limited to, when photography is used alongside another hobby interest like motorsport or wildlife or whatever. Applies to some professionals too, who often do a lot of the same kind of work.

You can to learn what you need to know for that easily enough, but if I hadn't been to college and worked in a few professional studios I would have very little experience of medium format, zero knowledge of large format, and know next to nothing about proper studio lighting, working to a client brief or with professional models, or the whole business of professional photography in general. Over the years, that knowledge has come in very useful.
Click to expand...
100% agree.
Not that I would want to go back to the bad old days, with terrible wages, virtually no access to higher and technical education and no internet - but the existance of large firms of photographers and long apprenticeships did mean that we were able to learn our craft :)
"Progress" has made photography accessible, which is obviously a good thing, but it has also led to lack of technical knowledge, lack of business experience and the general dumbing down of photography, and this in turn has led to the race to the bottom.
And this race to the bottom has led to the changes to the equipment that now sells successfully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top