Some test shots with my new Lencarta kit

chrisgeary

chrisgeary

Messages
758
Edit My Images
Yes
I couldn't resist the three head lencarta offer and folded a week ago. Thought I'd give some low key product photography a bash.

Please excuse the depth of black of the background. In the absence of a proper black background and snoots, I resorted to using my collapsed softbox as a background and darkened it out in Lightroom:

DSC_1124.jpg


I have a new found respect for the marketeers and photographers who keep dust off their products!

And just to prove the GF1 can't get in on the act, here is a shot from it:

P1000037.jpg


I'm not intending to get into product photography, but excusing the admissions above, c&c welcome :)
 
I'm no expert on product photography, but I think it's a pretty good effort Chris. I'd be pleased to have produced something like that. The lighting is subtle. How did you position them and on what power?

And ever so slightly off topic, but how did you find the Lencarta lights? I'm looking at a Lighting setup myself, and while the Lencarta sets do come at an attractive price, I wonder how they'd compare against the likes of Bowens and Elinchrom.
 
TimSandhu said:
I'm no expert on product photography, but I think it's a pretty good effort Chris. I'd be pleased to have produced something like that. The lighting is subtle. How did you position them and on what power?

And ever so slightly off topic, but how did you find the Lencarta lights? I'm looking at a Lighting setup myself, and while the Lencarta sets do come at an attractive price, I wonder how they'd compare against the likes of Bowens and Elinchrom.
Click to expand...

I recently bought the smartflash 300 twin head set-up from Lencarta, really good for the money in my opinion, and Garry Edwards was really patient and helpful helping me to customise the kit to my requirements.

The added advantage of buying Lencarta is that Garry is there to help if you have any 'post' purchase queries, how many other suppliers/e-bay sellers offer a similar service? :thumbs:

TaffyTim
 
I like the first shot. Not sure about the depth of field though. Have you try bringing the whole camera in focus? Just a thought...

The second image... I don't really "feel" it :). I'd probably added a front light or increased the power of the left light source to see if it is better.

Hope this is useful. Cheers!
 
@TimSandhu - Thanks! I had two lights, one off to the right at 90 degrees to the camera using a white umbrella and another to the left firing into the back left of my room for fill (largely because my study is tiny!). That fill largely accounts for the warm tones as the walls are standard issue rented-house magnolia/beige. I didn't note the power settings, doh!

The lighting kit is solid enough and for the money an absolute bargain. To put together a set of 3 speedlights like the SB600s with all the periphery would cost significantly more. The only real thing wrong with them is the lack of a dimming and flash-is-ready-again modelling light. The audible beeps are fine but when you have three to keep track of in your mind...

@Green Li - Yeah, f11 wasn't enough for full depth of field but mostly I like that as it gives a more 3D look, for me anyway. I guess for product photography you (companies) generally want full back to front sharpness though? At that range, f22 would have worked. The second image with the GF1, I forgot that it's min ISO is 100 whereas my D700 in the first is 200, so I'm out a stop already. When I processed it in LR I thought it was a bit dark so I compensated +0.5 but its only now as I write this that the dimness of it due to ISO makes sense.

Thanks for your comments!
 
Orange tone in the first pic looks like serious ambient light pollution, ie from the modelling light, not from the walls.

This sounds like a potentially serious problem to me, but I would like to be absolutely clear first.

Are you using the Lencarta Smartflash heads? Is it true that the modelling light is either full on, or off? What shutter speed did you use?

Thanks.
 
Yes, the modelling lamps are either on or off on the SmartFlash, the ElitePro is the bellsandwhistles model but this kit is £200 cheaper...

I agree, warm tone is almost certainly from the modelling lamps, they are powerful modelling lamps at 250w, so close shots like these should be taken with the modelling lamps off at the time of exposure
 
@Hoppy: Maybe, but the warm tones are coming from above and left. The modelling light from the right lamp would be firing into the umbrella and coming directly from the right, roughly the same level as the subject.
The head on the left just had the reflector installed and was directed away from the subject towards a beige curtain and bookshelf. So any effect from its modelling light would have been bounced.

@Garry: They appear to be 150w bulbs. Bright they maybe but at ISO200, f11, 1/125 I'd be surprised if they really had that much of an impact? I was using the smart flashes at around 1/8th from (faded) memory.

I'll set it up again, though, and see if your theory is right.

Anyway, given that they don't go off at shooting, I think that is lesson 1 to take away from this. I should turn the modelling lamps off once I've setup. Thank you both :)
 
chrisgeary said:
Anyway, given that they don't go off at shooting, I think that is lesson 1 to take away from this. I should turn the modelling lamps off once I've setup. Thank you both :)
Click to expand...

Chris, that isn't how it works. On heads where the modelling lamps go off when the flash fires, that's just so you know that when they're back on the flash is ready to fire again. The shutter (at normal shutter speeds) has closed before the lights have gone off completely because it isn't as instant as it looks, so you would still need to switch off the modelling lamps on close up shots.
At minimum power on the ElitePro range, the recycling is so quick that it's difficult to see that the modelling lamps have in fact dimmed.
 
Guys, I'm sorry to have to say this but I think the way the Lencarta Smartflash modelling light works is totally unacceptable and that it's unfit for purpose as sold. I would even consider sending it back unless Lencarta can provide an immediate fix (a workaround might be possible).

One of the reasons you buy a studio flash (as opposed to using hot-shoe guns) is because they have a modelling light. You can see what the light is doing and have something to work with when shooting in a darkened studio.

If you are working with at low flash power, which is often the case, and a full power modelling light, the flash intensity is always going to be close to the modelling light. That is why any decent studio light turns down the modelling light to keep it roughly in proportion to the flash, thereby minimising any possible modelling light polution.

Lencarta makes a big play about how consistent their flash colour temperature is at different flash outputs. All of which is completely thrown out of the window by the modelling light being orange/yellow (tungsten) relative to the daylight balance of the flash itself. With the result that we see in the OP.

There is nothing that you can do about this, other than turn the modelling light off completely. A bodge-workaround might be to fit a much lower wattage modelling light when shooting at low flash power (then swap it back for higher outputs). A better solution would be to fit a daylight balanced modelling light. I don't know if either option is possible, but it's something Lencarta should turn their attention to directly.
 
Yes, the modelling lamps are either on or off on the SmartFlash, the ElitePro is the bellsandwhistles model but this kit is £200 cheaper...
Click to expand...

I think the issue of the way the modelling lights work on the smartflash has been answered above! You get what you pay for.........
 
Dave Pickett said:
I think the issue of the way the modelling lights work on the smartflash has been answered above! You get what you pay for.........
Click to expand...

I would like to think of it as a design oversight. If Lencarta have a mind, I'm sure they could sort out an 'acceptable' solution, in view of the budget, very easily and at minimal cost - basically just a carefully daylight-balanced modelling light. It could be just a bulb change, or at worst a bulb change with a voltage mod to the feed.

Not ideal, but it's a budget flash. So long as it does the job, but as it stands at the moment, it simply does not.
 
HoppyUK said:
Guys, I'm sorry to have to say this but I think the way the Lencarta Smartflash modelling light works is totally unacceptable and that it's unfit for purpose as sold. I would even consider sending it back unless Lencarta can provide an immediate fix (a workaround might be possible).

One of the reasons you buy a studio flash (as opposed to using hot-shoe guns) is because they have a modelling light. You can see what the light is doing and have something to work with when shooting in a darkened studio.

If you are working with at low flash power, which is often the case, and a full power modelling light, the flash intensity is always going to be close to the modelling light. That is why any decent studio light turns down the modelling light to keep it roughly in proportion to the flash, thereby minimising any possible modelling light polution.

Lencarta makes a big play about how consistent their flash colour temperature is at different flash outputs. All of which is completely thrown out of the window by the modelling light being orange/yellow (tungsten) relative to the daylight balance of the flash itself. With the result that we see in the OP.

There is nothing that you can do about this, other than turn the modelling light off completely. A bodge-workaround might be to fit a much lower wattage modelling light when shooting at low flash power (then swap it back for higher outputs). A better solution would be to fit a daylight balanced modelling light. I don't know if either option is possible, but it's something Lencarta should turn their attention to directly.
Click to expand...

An interesting view, but let's deal in facts rather than opinions...

What is the purpose of a modelling lamp anyway?
It's to give an indication of what affect the flash will have when it fires, i.e. it will show where the highlights and shadows appear, and an indication of their intensity. It's just an indication because unless the shoot is taking place in total darkness, there will be other ambient light present as well, reducing the contrast of the modelling lights, so the modelling lights won't show the true contrast of the image.
So for some reason those manufacturers who have fitted a powerful modelling lamp, which gives a much more accurate indication, are wrong? Would it be better to fit the useless low powered modelling lamps fitted to cheapjack flash heads? Of course not!

What use are proportional modelling lamps anyway?
Well, some people like them and there's nothing wrong with that, but the question has to be, "What are they proportional to?" and the answer is that they are proportional to the power output of that particular flash head, and to that particular flash head only.
Now, I'm not knocking other makes, just giving an example. I have various Elinchrom flash heads and generator units in my studio and every one of them has 300w modelling bulbs - that's a 333j, a 1200j, a 2400j and a 6000j, all using exactly the same modelling bulb - so if I was thick enough to believe that the brightness of the modelling bulb in some way indicated the power of the flash I would be in for a nasty shock!

The fact of the matter is that just a few years ago modelling lamps were not proportional, and photographers didn't let it bother them. They just used the modelling lamp to set up the shot and if, in an extreme case like this when there is a very bright modelling bulb shining on a very close subject, they just turned them off before taking the shot. At portrait distances and the like, the brightness of the modelling bulb would have no measurable affect of the colour balance. Basically, proportional modelling lamps were probably introduced as nothing more than a marketing benefit, rather than an actual benefit. The cost of including a potentiometer to turn down the light is, after all, negligable - but it looks good:)

Saying that a product is unfit for purpose just because a photographer needs to turn off a modelling lamp very occasionally is ridiculous.
 
Garry Edwards said:
An interesting view, but let's deal in facts rather than opinions...

What is the purpose of a modelling lamp anyway?
It's to give an indication of what affect the flash will have when it fires, i.e. it will show where the highlights and shadows appear, and an indication of their intensity. It's just an indication because unless the shoot is taking place in total darkness, there will be other ambient light present as well, reducing the contrast of the modelling lights, so the modelling lights won't show the true contrast of the image.
So for some reason those manufacturers who have fitted a powerful modelling lamp, which gives a much more accurate indication, are wrong? Would it be better to fit the useless low powered modelling lamps fitted to cheapjack flash heads? Of course not!

What use are proportional modelling lamps anyway?
Well, some people like them and there's nothing wrong with that, but the question has to be, "What are they proportional to?" and the answer is that they are proportional to the power output of that particular flash head, and to that particular flash head only.
Now, I'm not knocking other makes, just giving an example. I have various Elinchrom flash heads and generator units in my studio and every one of them has 300w modelling bulbs - that's a 333j, a 1200j, a 2400j and a 6000j, all using exactly the same modelling bulb - so if I was thick enough to believe that the brightness of the modelling bulb in some way indicated the power of the flash I would be in for a nasty shock!

The fact of the matter is that just a few years ago modelling lamps were not proportional, and photographers didn't let it bother them. They just used the modelling lamp to set up the shot and if, in an extreme case like this when there is a very bright modelling bulb shining on a very close subject, they just turned them off before taking the shot. At portrait distances and the like, the brightness of the modelling bulb would have no measurable affect of the colour balance. Basically, proportional modelling lamps were probably introduced as nothing more than a marketing benefit, rather than an actual benefit. The cost of including a potentiometer to turn down the light is, after all, negligable - but it looks good:)

Saying that a product is unfit for purpose just because a photographer needs to turn off a modelling lamp very occasionally is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Garry, cards on the table, you work for Lencarta.

You appear to be saying that modelling lights that can be truned down are a waste of time, and I find it hard to believe you think that's true. Because it isn't.

Your argument for modelling lights not being in proportion is irrelevant in this case, not that it's particularly valid anyway. It doesn't matter if they are in pro or not in this situation, it is the fact they they are too bright and you cannot turn them down. You have to turn them off, which is not only completely unnacceptable, but easily and cheaply avoidable.

With the Smartflashes as they stand, if you want to shoot a nice soft portrait with the light close and inevitably at low power, you are going to get a strong orange/yellow cast and the only way to avoid that is to turn the modelling light off completely and work under ambient room light or something.

It is not a question of "very occasionally" at all, and even if it was it would still be unacceptable. It should not be necessary at any time and the product spec if flawed. I would not dream of buying flash like that, no matter how cheap, nor would I recommend anybody else does the same.

I would like to know about what Lencarta intends to do about it than hear any more marketing bluster. As you say, it should not be expensive to fix at all. But until it is fixed, Lencarta's good reputation for quality and value is looking a bit lame.
 
HoppyUK said:
Garry, cards on the table, you work for Lencarta.

You appear to be saying that modelling lights that can be truned down are a waste of time, and I find it hard to believe you think that's true. Because it isn't.

Your argument for modelling lights not being in proportion is irrelevant in this case, not that it's particularly valid anyway. It doesn't matter if they are in pro or not in this situation, it is the fact they they are too bright and you cannot turn them down. You have to turn them off, which is not only completely unnacceptable, but easily and cheaply avoidable.

With the Smartflashes as they stand, if you want to shoot a nice soft portrait with the light close and inevitably at low power, you are going to get a strong orange/yellow cast and the only way to avoid that is to turn the modelling light off completely and work under ambient room light or something.

It is not a question of "very occasionally" at all, and even if it was it would still be unacceptable. It should not be necessary at any time and the product spec if flawed. I would not dream of buying flash like that, no matter how cheap, nor would I recommend anybody else does the same.

I would like to know about what Lencarta intends to do about it than hear any more marketing bluster. As you say, it should not be expensive to fix at all. But until it is fixed, Lencarta's good reputation for quality and value is looking a bit lame.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do work for Lencarta, but that isn't the point. If you look at my portrait tutorial (for example), the first version which appeared 7 years ago, you'll see that I made exactly the same points about modelling lamps 5 1/2 years before I had any association with Lencarta. If you're suggesting that my views are in any way influenced by my association with Lencarta then you're wrong and frankly I find that insulting.

The SmartFlash 200 is a budget kit, priced at about the same level as most of the 'better' kits sold by others but with a much higher spec including, in most cases, much more useful modelling lamps (bright modelling lamps don't cost much but can only be safely used with flash heads that have efficient cooling fans. Most budget kits don't have any cooling fans at all). Basically, what's 'missing' from the SmartFlash is features, not real benefits. In other words, it's been designed for people who want a simple, easy to use interface. If the objective had been to save money then Lencarta could have done what others do, economised on the things that really matter such as the number and quality of key components such as capacitors - but there are no compromises there.

So, you seem to think that it's 'not fit for purpose' just because the modelling lamps actually work and because they only have 2 settings, on and off? Well, you're entitled to your opinion just as I'm entitled to mine...

How much impact does the modelling lamp actually have on the colour temperature if left switched on? Well, obviously that depends on the power setting of the flash and the distance that the modelling lamp has to travel to the subject, so I'll do a test and post the results here for everyone to see. Please feel free to do the same.

As for your earlier suggestions that the modelling lamps should be 'white light' that simply isn't practicable. The alternative could be thinking of is fluorescent, that wouldn't work because a fluorescent lamp that produced anywhere near the amount of light needed would be massive. It wouldn't fit.
The other theoretical alternative would be LED, but despite the hype, LED isn't a mature product yet and those that are available at anywhere near the required brightness aren't white either, nowhere near in fact. I'm sure that LED's are the future, but the future isn't here yet!

As for what Lencarta will do to solve the problem that you think exists, I have no idea. If they ask me then I will advise them to do nothing, as there is no problem.
 
OK, I've done a quick and dirty test.

Chris underexposed his shot by about a stop, so I've done the same.
He shot at 1/125th at f/11, so I've done the same.
I've photographed an object of similar size and colour.
I don't know how far his light was from the subject, I've used a single SmartFlash head at a distance of just 18", that was as close as I could get without obstructing the camera. Obviously, the closer the light is, the greater the effect of any colour cast caused by the modelling lamp.

3 separate shots, straight out of camera except for resizing and dropping on to a background layer.
smartflash_model.jpg


So, as per the labels. There is a tiny difference between the shots with the modelling lamp on and with it off. You can see exactly how much difference the modelling lamp made to both colour cast and exposure by looking at the bottom picture, which was taken with just the modelling lamp, flash switched off. If you look closely you can just see the white diffuser in the bottom picture, and there is a colour cast that I measured at 50K. Most people agree that up to 300K is acceptable for portrait shots, some manufacturers produce lights that vary by more than 700K so I think that that 50K caused by having the modelling lamp on will be acceptable to most people.

So, as you can see, this test shows that with the flash on extremely low power and the modelling lamp switched on, the effect on both colour temperature and exposure is negligible even with the flash extremely close to the subject. Obviously, when the flash power is higher and when the head is further from the subject, the effect becomes even more difficult to see and your argument that the modelling lamp on the Lencarta causes a problem becomes even less valid.

The OP says that the colour cast was caused by light reflecting from a wall. It seems to me that he is right and this test proves it:)

I don't mind you (or anyone else) expressing an opinion and I'm always happy to be proved wrong (that's how I learn) but expressing views that masquerade as facts is wrong in my book. The facts are demonstrated in the photos.
 
Chaz Photos said:
On my calibrated monitor both are too dark and on the left side it lose into the black background
One thing about un-calibrated monitors is they are too bright
Click to expand...
As I said, I underexposed by 1 stop to match the orginal
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, I do work for Lencarta, but that isn't the point. If you look at my portrait tutorial (for example), the first version which appeared 7 years ago, you'll see that I made exactly the same points about modelling lamps 5 1/2 years before I had any association with Lencarta. If you're suggesting that my views are in any way influenced by my association with Lencarta then you're wrong and frankly I find that insulting.

The SmartFlash 200 is a budget kit, priced at about the same level as most of the 'better' kits sold by others but with a much higher spec including, in most cases, much more useful modelling lamps (bright modelling lamps don't cost much but can only be safely used with flash heads that have efficient cooling fans. Most budget kits don't have any cooling fans at all). Basically, what's 'missing' from the SmartFlash is features, not real benefits. In other words, it's been designed for people who want a simple, easy to use interface. If the objective had been to save money then Lencarta could have done what others do, economised on the things that really matter such as the number and quality of key components such as capacitors - but there are no compromises there.

So, you seem to think that it's 'not fit for purpose' just because the modelling lamps actually work and because they only have 2 settings, on and off? Well, you're entitled to your opinion just as I'm entitled to mine...

How much impact does the modelling lamp actually have on the colour temperature if left switched on? Well, obviously that depends on the power setting of the flash and the distance that the modelling lamp has to travel to the subject, so I'll do a test and post the results here for everyone to see. Please feel free to do the same.

As for your earlier suggestions that the modelling lamps should be 'white light' that simply isn't practicable. The alternative could be thinking of is fluorescent, that wouldn't work because a fluorescent lamp that produced anywhere near the amount of light needed would be massive. It wouldn't fit.
The other theoretical alternative would be LED, but despite the hype, LED isn't a mature product yet and those that are available at anywhere near the required brightness aren't white either, nowhere near in fact. I'm sure that LED's are the future, but the future isn't here yet!

As for what Lencarta will do to solve the problem that you think exists, I have no idea. If they ask me then I will advise them to do nothing, as there is no problem.
Click to expand...


Don't be insulted Garry. That you work for Lencarta is a statement of fact and common knowledge. I have no reason to think that you are anything but entirely honourable, and indeed one of the most respected and helpful posters on TP. But it is relevant when discussing any Lencarta product and you cannot avoid that.

And I will say that I find your defense of this aspect of the Smartflash as out of character as it is inexplicable. How can you dismiss a modelling light that dims sufficiently so as not to pollute the flash exposure as some kind of disposable "feature" and not a "real benefit"? The fact that you say you have held this view for many years is equally bewildering, and neither does it explain its incorporation as a "real benefit" into every quality studio flash unit, including other Lencarta models, since Bowens introduced the original Monolight in the 1970s. However, I will suggest that this is more of a problem today with digital ISOs being generally much higher than film with the result that flash outputs have come down and are inevitably closer to ambient than ever. This won't help, but it makes a good solution today more important than ever.

Furthermore, you say it could be cheaply, and properly fixed with a potentiometer. Do it then. My suggestion to change the existing modelling bulb was was, as I said, nothing more than a workaround bodge but at least it might work acceptably and reduce the problem to an insignificant level. I was thinking of a blue-tinted bulb more than anything else. They certainly exist but I have no idea if they would fit straight in. And fankly, that is neither here nor there and certainly not my problem to sort out. Please don't criticise me for not coming up with a perfect solution to Lencarta's shortcomings off the top of my head.

There is no need for either you or me to shoot comparison pictures to show the effect. The OP has already done this, it is severe, and you correctly identified the problem in post #7. It needs sorting.
 
Garry Edwards said:
OK, I've done a quick and dirty test...

snip
Click to expand...

That not a good test procedure.

The distance of the flash is irrelevant, it's the power output, relative to the modelling lamp flat out that matters.

Don't underexpose, shoot a typical subject with some white and grey in it, and set the flash at minimum power, colour balance set for flash. That is a proper test of this characteristic.
 
HoppyUK said:
Don't be insulted Garry. That you work for Lencarta is a statement of fact and common knowledge. I have no reason to think that you are anything but entirely honourable, and indeed one of the most respected and helpful posters on TP. But it is relevant when discussing any Lencarta product and you cannot avoid that.

And I will say that I find your defense of this aspect of the Smartflash as out of character as it is inexplicable. How can you dismiss a modelling light that dims sufficiently so as not to pollute the flash exposure as some kind of disposable "feature" and not a "real benefit"? The fact that you say you have held this view for many years is equally bewildering, and neither does it explain its incorporation as a "real benefit" into every quality studio flash unit, including other Lencarta models, since Bowens introduced the original Monolight in the 1970s. However, I will suggest that this is more of a problem today with digital ISOs being generally much higher than film with the result that flash outputs have come down and are inevitably closer to ambient than ever. This won't help, but it makes a good solution today more important than ever.

Furthermore, you say it could be cheaply, and properly fixed with a potentiometer. Do it then. My suggestion to change the existing modelling bulb was was, as I said, nothing more than a workaround bodge but at least it might work acceptably and reduce the problem to an insignificant level. I was thinking of a blue-tinted bulb more than anything else. They certainly exist but I have no idea if they would fit straight in. And fankly, that is neither here nor there and certainly not my problem to sort out. Please don't criticise me for not coming up with a perfect solution to Lencarta's shortcomings off the top of my head.

There is no need for either you or me to shoot comparison pictures to show the effect. The OP has already done this, it is severe, and you correctly identified the problem in post #7. It needs sorting.
Click to expand...

I felt insulted because it seems to me that you were saying that I was defending Lencarta simply because I have a business relationship with them.

As it happens Talk Photography has now agreed to Lencarta opening an advertiser account in the name of Lencarta. In future, all (any) posts made on behalf of Lencarta will be posted under the name of Lencarta, any posts made under my own name will contain my views and mine alone. This may help to avoid confusion. I don't yet know who will make those posts on behalf of Lencarta, but it was never my intention that my business relationship with them would be a long term one and it is probably now a good time for someone else to be the 'voice of Lencarta' and for me to move on and to concentrate on my other clients.

As I've said earlier, although there is obviously an element of colour polution if a studio flash with a powerful modelling lamp, used very close to the subject and with the flash energy level set very low. But my test clearly shows that even under these extreme testing conditions, the effect is negligible. I'm not going to argue that proportional modelling lamps don't solve this problem (if the problem does actually exist) but I'm not convinced, because when a modelling lamp is turned down the colour becomes MUCH redder, therefore although the intensity is lower the negative effect from whatever light is there is much higher. I don't have enough specialised knowledge of physics to know whether that's the case or not. All that I do know, as a studio photographer, is that I switch modelling lamps off to avoid the possible problem if flash is being used at very close distances and at very low power.

Pretty well all products and services are sold because of the extras bundled with them, whether that extra is a benefit or the promise of a future discount. Not all of the extras are useless but some are more useful than others, and personally I don't see proportional modelling lamps as a real benefit although of course I do understand that a lot of people like them. I'm not knocking manufacturers who include proportional modelling lamps, all I'm saying is that you should not state that the SmartFlash is 'not fit for purpose' just because it doesn't have this feature.

As for the statement that the reason for the red colour cast is the non-proportional modelling lamp, that was your opinion and it was mine too, until the OP pointed out that the colour cast was in fact caused by his coloured walls. My test shows that he is right and that you and I were wrong. You say that my test is flawed - yes, it is only a quick test as I pointed out but I tried to replicate the shooting conditions that Chris used, except that I don't have coloured walls, and that test showed that the colour cast from the modelling lamp was insignificant. A properly exposed shot with the lighting at a greater distance would only show the insignificance of the colour cast even more clearly.
 
Garry Edwards said:
snip
...As I've said earlier, although there is obviously an element of colour polution if a studio flash with a powerful modelling lamp, used very close to the subject and with the flash energy level set very low...
snip
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a significant element of colour pollution if you use a studio flash on a low power output and with a 250w modelling lamp (as fitted according to the Lencarta website) running flat out. It is unavoidable.

It is inevitable because the modelling light ambient exposure will not be that far off the flash. Your comment that turning the modelling light down makes no difference because the light gets more red is just not true. Sure the light gets redder, but that is insignificant compared to the simultaneous decrease in intensity - and that is where the problem lies. Brightness of the yellow/orange modelling light in relation to the (blue) flash.

You don't need any "specialised knowledge of physics" for this, just take some proper test pictures as I suggested. You have not done this. Your test pictures above are invalid. That is, shoot a regular subject, colour balance set for flash, correct exposure, Smartflash on minimum power and 250w modelling light on full.

You will get colour temperature polution. It will be far more noticeable than the shots you have posted. It will be unacceptable in my view. I very much doubt that it will be as bad as the OP's example - that is just too orange I think; I agree there is some other contributor to the colour of the light there, in addition to the modelling light at 1/125sec.

I don't think it is acceptable to sell a studio flash head like this, when the only way to get accurate colour in low power shots - say portraits at f/5.6 or less, not at all uncommon - is to turn the modelling light completely off and conduct an entire session with the room lights on so you can see what you're doing :eek: That's just crazy IMHO.

I have seen this problem before when I accidentally shot with the modelling light on full blast, but with low flash power. And that is with a much lower wattage modelling light than 250w. Plus with my Elinchrom D-Lites (100w modelling light I think) you can turn it down so that it is five stops less bright. Just as you can with other Lencarta flash heads, but not the Smartflash.

It is a significant problem, it exists, it is bad, and in my view it is unnecessary even in budget kit. The solution might be as simple as fitting a lower power modelling bulb. Not ideal maybe, but it might do the trick. But the way the Smartflash spec currently stands, it is not right and pretending that everything is fine does not do Lencarta any credit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top