Stupid question - re: power of lights indoors

J

JohnBoyUK

Messages
74
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Something has been puzzling me. Bear with me. Its a bit of a stupid question which I was pondering over at 3am whilst suffering a bit of insomnia and when I eventually woke up today, I thought I'd ask the experts.

Take the Godox range for example AD600, AD400, AD200. Can be used indoors and out. On an outdoor shoot, to overpower the sun, most people would use the AD600. I get that.
But would there be any use for the AD600 in a studio environment? Would you use the max power of the light for anything or would it be a case it dialing it down indoors? So a AD200 would be more suitable. Or am I completely missing something?

Hope that makes sense.
 
JohnBoyUK said:
Or am I completely missing something?
Click to expand...

Photography is a very broad subject, take two photographers and while they technically do the same thing they can work in totally different ways and equally their needs are completely different.

You have to consider other applications, if you're just doing say portraits in a small space and/or with a large aperture then yes you're probably correct you'd want a low power head as lots of power is wasted in that situation but what if you were in a large studio with gigantic modifiers? Take a indirect softbox (say 5 foot or above), at even reasonably close range you'd probably want around 400 Ws just to give a correct exposure at f/11.

Does that make sense?
 
Well, for most people, in most small studios, most of the time, you're absolutely right, and if you were to find yourself needing more power - because you're using a modifier that swallows a lot of light - then it makes perfect sense just to turn up the camera iso.

But if there are high levels of unwanted ambient light then it's quicker / easier to use more power, to drown out that ambient light, because turning up the iso makes the ambient light effectively brighter.
 
Though having and diallling down a powerfull strobe gives a couple of other advantages like
Shorter recycle time for faster shooting without black frames and shorter flashduration times for use for those cool splash and water droplet pics etc

The case for smaller lights is usually portability ie. weight and bulk (and price)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The last thing that you want is for a battery to fail and I have taken up to 1500 images at a social event so let us take the AD600PRO, about 360 full power shots or 720 half power or 1440 quarter power, with the AD600 that is about 500, 1000, 2000 so it is better to shoot at ISO 400 and 1/4 power flash than it is at ISO 100 and full power flash for me

Mike
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
Well, for most people, in most small studios, most of the time, you're absolutely right, and if you were to find yourself needing more power - because you're using a modifier that swallows a lot of light - then it makes perfect sense just to turn up the camera iso.

But if there are high levels of unwanted ambient light then it's quicker / easier to use more power, to drown out that ambient light, because turning up the iso makes the ambient light effectively brighter.
Click to expand...

Thanks Garry, Mike, Simon and all for your helpful replies. Thats put my mind at rest.
 
JohnBoyUK said:
Something has been puzzling me. Bear with me. Its a bit of a stupid question which I was pondering over at 3am whilst suffering a bit of insomnia and when I eventually woke up today, I thought I'd ask the experts.

Take the Godox range for example AD600, AD400, AD200. Can be used indoors and out. On an outdoor shoot, to overpower the sun, most people would use the AD600. I get that.
But would there be any use for the AD600 in a studio environment? Would you use the max power of the light for anything or would it be a case it dialing it down indoors? So a AD200 would be more suitable. Or am I completely missing something?

Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

The reason you need more power outdoors is simply because sunlight is very bright, and that sets the baseline. If the flash is to do anything more than just lift the shadows and you want it to actually dominate, then practise suggests you'll need at least 400Ws (very, very rough rule of thumb) using a softbox at the kind of distances common to portraiture with any kind of flexibility. But frankly, the more power you have the better, especially if it's very bright, or you want to use a bigger softbox at greater distance (common with some outdoor subjects) and yet more power again if you need to shift into High Speed Sync mode (which is inherently wasteful of output). By the same token, if it's overcast, or in shade, or later in the day, then you'll need less power, and if it's actually dark then no more power than in a studio if distances are similar.

Studio working is completely different as there's no significant ambient light and you have total control. 400Ws is usually plenty, 100Ws or a speedlight is often enough and you'll be turning down more powerful lights. That can be an advantage if very fast recycle times are needed, or very fast flash durations, though some heads can change colour when turned down a lot if that's critical. Plus more powerful lights are bigger and heavier and more expensive, and if you're pushed for more exposure then in the studio you can just ramp up the ISO with minimal penalty with modern cameras and since there's no ambient light that won't be affected like outdoors. Doubling ISO is the same as doubling the Ws output in exposure terms.
 
mike weeks said:
Another point is that we used to be limited to 4-5 stops of adjustment meaning it was possible to have lights that were too powerful (yes such things as ND filters are available) but now having 8-10 stops of adjustment it is really not an issue, so the light becomes much more universal

Mike
Click to expand...

Yes (y)

Just for info, that kind of wide power range is common to IGBT-regulated flash heads, like all the Godox units listed in the OP. Very few of the more conventional voltage-regulated heads offer as much scope. Other advantages of IGBT are auto-TTL exposure control, HSS (High Speed Sync), and very fast flash durations like 1/10,000sec or less (at minimum power setting) that are not possible with voltage regulation.

Voltage-regulated heads do have some advantages, mainly much lower cost though that's at least partly because they tend to be mains powered. Overall IGBT ticks more boxes and it's worth noting that the technology we now have available (IGBT now with big power, amazing battery performance, efficient LED modelling lamps) is all very new and simply didn't exist just a few years ago. It's opened things up dramatically, particularly working outdoors which used to be both a costly and cumbersome business :)
 
I had a similar dilemma myself recently, a chat with Garry convinced me I was making the right decision for the right reasons and I went for the Godox AD400Pro from Lencarta it struck the right balance of enough power and features ( such as IGBT) without going over the top power wise for shooting in a small home studio.
 
mike weeks said:
The last thing that you want is for a battery to fail and I have taken up to 1500 images at a social event so let us take the AD600PRO, about 360 full power shots or 720 half power or 1440 quarter power, with the AD600 that is about 500, 1000, 2000 so it is better to shoot at ISO 400 and 1/4 power flash than it is at ISO 100 and full power flash for me

Mike
Click to expand...
Hi @mike weeks

Is the Ad600 Manual more powerful than the pro version ? Or is battery better ?

Gaz
 
@mike weeks Thanks Mike.

I was just looking at these ad600's as I own the ad200 and thought it maybe nice to have more power. I do wonder at times wether the ad200 is much more powerful than my Canon 580 ex's. As in my little place and using softboxes I can end up using it at full power.
There appears to be quite a few models of the ad600 now which is confusing. I have never owned studio stuff so not had a modeling light before. That seems to be an upgrade on the later ad600. So unsure wether the original ad600's modeling light is ok.

Gaz
 
cargo said:
There appears to be quite a few models of the ad600 now which is confusing. I have never owned studio stuff so not had a modeling light before. That seems to be an upgrade on the later ad600. So unsure wether the original ad600's modeling light is ok.
Click to expand...

There's two version of the AD600, the AD600B which has TTL and the AD600BM which does not.

The AD600 pro is effectively a new design, faster recycle times, colour consistent mode etc but unless you have a specific need the AD600BM usually makes most sense, by virtue of low price if nothing else.

cargo said:
So unsure wether the original ad600's modeling light is ok.
Click to expand...

It works just fine for its intended purpose, it's not great by any means but purely as something functional indoors it's fine and a big step up from an AD200.
 
simonbarker said:
It works just fine for its intended purpose, it's not great by any means but purely as something functional indoors it's fine and a big step u
Click to expand...
Thanks Simon. Good information. I'm only a hobbiest so don't really need top of the range. But once you start looking. You know how it is !

Gaz
 
For most portraiture 300Ws is ample.

However.. as soon as you start feathering a double diffused large softbox at a distance from your subject - such as I might do to get even coverage from one side of a dancer to another - you'll find that you might not get enough DoF at ISO100.

Increasing ISO is one option if ambient light isn't a problem - it is in my usual space. I regularly feel the need for more than 300Ws (but usually manage without!!).
 
juggler said:
For most portraiture 300Ws is ample.

However.. as soon as you start feathering a double diffused large softbox at a distance from your subject - such as I might do to get even coverage from one side of a dancer to another - you'll find that you might not get enough DoF at ISO100.

Increasing ISO is one option if ambient light isn't a problem - it is in my usual space. I regularly feel the need for more than 300Ws (but usually manage without!!).
Click to expand...

I think that the perceived problem here is that all lighting specs, guide numbers and so on are based on 100 ISO. This was important back in the days of film and remained relevant in the early days of digital simply because image quality became terrible as soon as the ISO went over about 200 - but those days are now well and truly behind us and nearly all cameras produce very good IQ at pretty high ISO figures.

Which leaves us with only the problem that you highlighted, ambient light. It makes a lot of sense to spend a bit of time and money excluding unwanted ambient light, rather than to spend it on buying much more powerful flashes that aren't needed in the absence of high levels of ambient light.
 
cargo said:
@mike weeks Thanks Mike.

I was just looking at these ad600's as I own the ad200 and thought it maybe nice to have more power. I do wonder at times wether the ad200 is much more powerful than my Canon 580 ex's. As in my little place and using softboxes I can end up using it at full power.
There appears to be quite a few models of the ad600 now which is confusing. I have never owned studio stuff so not had a modeling light before. That seems to be an upgrade on the later ad600. So unsure wether the original ad600's modeling light is ok.

Gaz
Click to expand...

My advice would be to look at the AD400PRO, about the same price as the AD600 but has much better modelling light, faster recharge, better colour stability, Beter bracket

Mike
 
mike weeks said:
My advice would be to look at the AD400PRO, about the same price as the AD600 but has much better modelling light, faster recharge, better colour stability, Beter bracket

Mike
Click to expand...

AD400-Pro looks like the pick for most people, but it's nice to have so much choice (y)

And by the way, speedlights are more powerful than some would have us believe - mostly studio flash manufacturers. Long story short, decent speedlights like the Canon 580EX/600EX, ditto high-end Nikons etc, are least 100Ws equivalent if you actually compare them properly.
 
mike weeks said:
My advice would be to look at the AD400PRO,
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike. I know your a professional so will know your stuff. I am assuming you have used the 400 along side the 600.
When you say similar price. As to which model of the Ad600 ?

Gaz
 
cargo said:
Thanks Mike. I know your a professional so will know your stuff. I am assuming you have used the 400 along side the 600.
When you say similar price. As to which model of the Ad600 ?

Gaz
Click to expand...

The AD600B (so the TTL version) and the the AD400PRO are about £600 and then the AD600PRO is about £800

I have used all 3 together and we are only looking at 0.6 stop difference between the PRO versions and it will do all you need

Mike
 
Thanks Mike. That's great. I appreciate the time given.

Gaz
 
Garry Edwards said:
I think that the perceived problem here is that all lighting specs, guide numbers and so on are based on 100 ISO. This was important back in the days of film and remained relevant in the early days of digital simply because image quality became terrible as soon as the ISO went over about 200 - but those days are now well and truly behind us and nearly all cameras produce very good IQ at pretty high ISO figures.

Which leaves us with only the problem that you highlighted, ambient light. It makes a lot of sense to spend a bit of time and money excluding unwanted ambient light, rather than to spend it on buying much more powerful flashes that aren't needed in the absence of high levels of ambient light.
Click to expand...
Which again lead us into the teritory of trouble with seeing, composing and focussing in the dark :LOL:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The best answers revolve around cycle time, low power heads at near or max = slow recycle and If your using them anywhere near full power to compensate for buying the wrong ones, then expect them to die sooner as well, a 600w flash used at 300w will recycle a lot faster and the electronics are not working so hard. We have a couple of 1200w in the studio. God only knows when you would use them on full power, the noise is enough to scare your subject to death, but as a backlight at 400w they should last forever. this exact issue came up yesterday in the studio, the wrong head was used as a backlight and it was on full power(400w) after about an hour, it simply could not keep up with the front lights which were on about 60-70%. It missed one in five shots, quick change and all was well again. Outside HSS is your best friend as well.
 
Last edited:
Kieranstandishphoto said:
The best answers revolve around cycle time, low power heads at near or max = slow recycle and If your using them anywhere near full power to compensate for buying the wrong ones, then expect them to die sooner as well, a 600w flash used at 300w will recycle a lot faster and the electronics are not working so hard. We have a couple of 1200w in the studio. God only knows when you would use them on full power, the noise is enough to scare your subject to death, but as a backlight at 400w they should last forever. this exact issue came up yesterday in the studio, the wrong head was used as a backlight and it was on full power(400w) after about an hour, it simply could not keep up with the front lights which were on about 60-70%. It missed one in five shots, quick change and all was well again. Outside HSS is your best friend as well.
Click to expand...

Hello & welcome to the forum.

You're clearly knowledgeable. I find it extremely helpful to see some work by contributors like yourself to get some idea of where you're coming from. Got a link to your stuff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top