Elemental Trinity Lights - Consistency and colour accuracy

Denyerec

Denyerec

Suspended / Banned
Messages
946
Name
Denyer
Edit My Images
No
Hi there folks,
Have been shooting with 4 Nikon speedlights for a while now and have been toying with the idea of getting some monoblocs / more powerful strobes and got looking at the Elemental Trinity set.

Does anyone have any empirical test data for the shot-to-shot consistency of the Trinity power settings (EG to what degree of accuracy one exposure will match another at the same settings) and also how the spectral distribution varies across the power range? A lot of lights tend to colour shift as you move to lower powers, so I'm interested in seeing some data.

Marketing information is worthless as it can't be trusted to be accurate, anecdotal "They seem great to me" input, whilst nice, doesn't really satisfy the mind of someone looking at blowing a few grand on lights.

Anyone with this kit willing to run some tests, or anyone able to point me to some test data out there? Be very greatly appreciated. Also if anyone has any recommendations on better equipment in the 300-800 WS range, perhaps even battery pack kit, I'd be interested to hear the opinions. Willing to put aside £2k to get a few lights and modifiers, maybe 2-3 heads.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Why do you need 750-1000 w/s, it isnt that much more than 300w/s

I have a few 300's, 500's, 800's and most of the time the 300's are on less than 1/4 power. even lighting huge marquee, they were on 1/2 power

Even using the 500's with a fresnel spot, or a very large softbox, the power is more than ample for anything I normally do (people / products)

I am slightly biased in the recommendation, but so far I am very impressed with the power and colour consistency of the Lencarta lighting I use
 
Den, you know about the tronix xt packs that can juice these? They're £300 or so each and can juice up to 2400ws of light. Big and heavy is downside, but hardly an issue when you're hauling a lot of kit about. There's also a Nimh based pack that's about to be released at photokina, which looks pretty cool, but will likely cost more. Rumours are that 'a UK lighting brand' ;) are looking at selling them to juice their lights too.

Their studio/warehouse is fairly near my parent's house if you want to come down and have a play, I'm fine to come help... give Danny a call though, they may have some test data or be happy to do some for you.
 
Last edited:
Duly noted regarding the power rating, I have edited my post accordingly to reflect looking for 300-800ws units. The brace of SB800's I have currently will serve as accent/highlight lights for the time being.
I'm looking to start using 3-6ft modifiers and would rather find myself in the situation of having to use ND gels to kill power, than wishing I had more to spare.

Richard, do you have any impartial test-data for both colour and luminance consistency for the Lencarta lights across their power output range?
 
Last edited:
Give Elemental a call, they will be more than happy to provide you with the specs you need, if you not happy with them after using them, their customer care support is excellent.
 
Denyerec said:
Richard, do you have any impartial test-data for both colour and luminance consistency for the Lencarta lights across their power output range?
Click to expand...

No I dont, besides the fact I am very happy with the results

I have to say in this instance that while I wouldn't lie about this, I am technically not impartial when it comes to Lencarta products

I know Garry Edwards has done the tests, and they are favourable... He has more of an interest in the company than I do. However I have seen how and where he did the tests, and I personally wouldn't doubt the results, And I would pay out my money on the basis of the results. I am sure thee are loads of happy Lencarta, Bowens, Elemental, Prophoto users who will all pitch in
 
I'm not going to comment on any products sold under the name of 'Elemental'. I never do and never will, and if you read through this thread you should get a pretty good idea of the nature of their management, and will understand why I'm not going to make any comments. So, what follows is relevant to studio lights in general, not to any particular make or brand.

1. Although there are a few pretty awful studio lights around, you can be confident that almost any studio lights will give better colour consistency, when you reduce the power, than your hotshoe flashguns. The reason for this is that although the cheaper studio lights do get decidedly 'warm' when the power is reduced, hotshoe flashes get very 'cold' when the power is reduced, and 'warm' generally looks better than 'cold', and studio flashes generally shift far less in terms of colour temperature than hotshoe flashes.

Let me explain that.
Good studio flashes have lots of capacitors inside them, and one of the many benefits of having a lot of capacitors is that, when the power is reduced to various levels the capacitors are 'switched out', leaving the remaining ones working at full throttle. This keeps both colour temperature and flash duration fairly consistent. Cheap ones have very few capacitors (cost and space considerations) and when the power is reduced a potentiometer is used to reduce the voltage, this makes the flash duration increase and dramatically reduces the colour temperature, and also makes the colour temperature (and flash energy output) inconsistent, shot to shot. The less good brands either don't say how many capacitors are included or, sometimes, aren't very good at counting them if they do say.

Hotshoe flashes work differently, whatever the power setting they always fire at full power. When the 'power' is reduced the flash still fires at full power but it is cut off abruptly and so doesn't have the characteristic bell curve of a flash that is losing its power (and whiteness) as it tails off. At full power, the hotshoe flash is very blue at the bright bit and very red at the end, and is balanced to give a 'white' light. Without the balance, when used at low power settings, the light is too blue.

I'm not impartial because, although I'm not employed by Lencarta, they do pay me for my services, so what I have to say next may or may not help you. The only way to test flash duration is with an oscilloscope and the only way to test colour temperature is with a colour temperature meter. Neither of these tools is particuarly cheap and so it's unlikely that the average user will have them, so people pretty well have to rely on the statements made by the sellers...

Looking at some websites, it's obvious to me that the published figures cannot be true, and if I was the cynical type I might think that the figures had just been 'lifted' from the website of the actual manufacturer, but although a closer look sometimes confirms this, in at least one case the figures haven't been published by the real manufacturer, and as they clearly haven't come from actual tests either it's difficult to guess where they did in fact come from.

I have tested both the colour temperature and the flash duration of all Lencarta flash heads and the results are published on the website. TP members who have been to my studio will probably have seen these tools there. As part of a personal project, as and when I can I am testing other brands too; this testing is far from complete but when it is complete I will make the results known.

There is one particular make (not one that has been mentioned so far in this thread) that is made 'down to a price' and which is extremely inconsistent, with flash energy output varying by around 30% pop-to-pop and colour temperature consistency varying up to 1000K - and yet these very poor lights are extremely popular in their home country and their users praise them to the heavens, apparently not noticing that every shot is different! So you're right, anecdotal 'evidence' isn't always helpful.

I said that the only way to test colour temperature is with a colour temperature meter - that's true, but it is possible to do a rough test without one, and this short article may help.
 
Thanks for the link to the test there Gary, it was quite surprising to see such a variance from the Elinchrom, a brand bandied around as being professional, consistent etc...

I have access to the required equipment to perform all the tests, just not access to the equipment I'd like to actually test :)
 
Garry Edwards said:
Looking at some websites, it's obvious to me that the published figures cannot be true, and if I was the cynical type I might think that the figures had just been 'lifted' from the website of the actual manufacturer,
Click to expand...
Screenshots could be useful here, otherwise you could just be spouting.

I'm pretty sure lighting company's do not quake in their boots when you post, happy to listen if you have solid info though :thumbs:
 
PerfectSpeed said:
Screenshots could be useful here, otherwise you could just be spouting.

I'm pretty sure lighting company's do not quake in their boots when you post, happy to listen if you have solid info though :thumbs:
Click to expand...
I'm not going to post screenshots. Either you accept that what I say is right or you don't. Or you could do your own research...
 
Garry Edwards said:
I'm not going to post screenshots. Either you accept that what I say is right or you don't. Or you could do your own research...
Click to expand...
Post facts then mate, you are a professional after all, or a lot of youngsters might believe ya all mighty one.

I'm not brand loyal by any means by a long chalk, but my answer was fact based :thumbs:
 
Here we go, Bash Garry time again!

I quite fancy the Elemental Trinity's, anyone got any actual experience with them?
 
Richard King said:
I am sure Garry will love me and hate me for this... This thread here shows why education and technique matter so much more then equipment

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=239815

Look at the photo's, and then see what kit is being used
Click to expand...

I'm pretty ambivalent about the importance of kit...

I think that a lot of people waste a lot of money on kit that they don't even need and who don't or won't even learn to use properly.

For example, they buy the most expensive cameras simply because they're expensive, but then they don't use the features that make those cameras so expensive in the first place - for example they buy a camera that can take 8 shots per second in the pouring rain and that can produce 'acceptable' image quality at 3200 ISO but they only take photos of their kids in their studio:)
Or they buy 'L' lenses but never make prints bigger than 8"x6" (and some of them never make prints at all).

My hobby is shooting and I'm just as guilty of wasting money on expensive guns as some people are of wasting money on expensive photo gear - I'm not a bad shot but I'm never going to shoot for England either, so why do I spend so much on fancy guns when I see other, more skilled people shooting much better than me with beat up old guns that only cost £50?

A few years ago I made the massive mistake of going into a business partnership with a man who turned out to be a crook and a drunk. When I got out of that partnership I had virtually nothing left in terms of lighting equipment and I had to manage with a few lights that were nothing but junk, and it took me a while to re-equip myself with decent quality second hand lights. Until I could do that I managed, but I had to use every bit of skill and knowledge of lighting, and I had to turn down jobs that simply couldn't be done well. Later, I was able to buy decent lighting and because I still couldn't afford Bron I spent many thousands on Elinchrom pro lighting, mainly the Chic generator lights, and still have some of that in my studio, using it alongside the Lencarta lighting that I use now.

Back to shooting. If I go out shooting sporting clays and hit 40+ out of 50 I've shot well, it doesn't matter what gun I've used, who my coach is or what I say I know about shooting - either I hit the clays or I don't, it's objective and absolute.

Photography is the opposite. There are acclaimed photographers with a following of loyal fans who consistently produce work that I personally would put straight into the recycle bin - which doesn't make me either right or wrong, because what is good or bad in photography is subjective. It isn't entirely subjective though, because once we get away from the www and into the real world of large prints the differences in lenses and even cameras do show up, and once we get into the tough world of pro photography for discerning clients, where the photographer has to be able to produce consistently good work under all conditions, and can't (for example) change a colour shot with bad colours into a black & white one, can't get away with computer sharpening to hide a poor lens, can't afford to spend hours on a computer 'rescuing' a poor shot etc, equipment and knowledge become very important.

Digital photography is a wonderful creative tool but it has its downsides too, and one of those downsides is that it makes it possible for unskilled photographers to turn out work that looks OK, especially at small sizes - and this masks the importance of decent equipment and real knowledge.

The O.P. is right to ask about colour temperature consistency and flash energy consistency because these things are vitally important in the real world. If they weren't so important firms like Bron, who produce very expensive equipment that is consistent within 40K, would be out of business because the photographers who buy their gear would save their money and buy no-name brands.

Back to the world of everyday studio photography: If you don't care about consistent colour, if you don't mind taking and re-taking the same shot many times in the hope that one of those shots will be correctly exposed and will have the same colour temperature from each light, if you enjoy spending a LOT of time on PS and if you're happy with your results, save your money and buy cheap - Horses for courses:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top