Hotshoe flash or studio flash? Discuss.

[Garry Edwards]

Prompted by this post by Tomas Whitehouse

With all due respect Garry, I'm not convinced that your feelings on the subject are balanced, I still feel that as you have access to gear the rest of us mortals don't have so freely, you don't consider the capabilities very fairly.

If you have a closer look at Dustin's work, studio flashes would make his project close to impossible, especially considering his commitments and daily routine aside of the project itself.

http://photography.dustindiaz.com/

Have a look at this picture:

http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/onblac...596&size=large

Our tastes my differ but I'm sure you can appreciate that it's one damn fine piece of photography?


Taken from this thread http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=141593 - I’ve started a new thread because I don’t want to hijack the other one.

Let me set out my stall…
I’m not against using hotshoe flashes. Great bits of kit, especially for those of us who use the Nikon system, which I believe to be by far the best when it comes to hotshoe flash.

And a great way of creating light, especially for photojournalists and others who need to shoot on location without the need to carry around delicate and heavy alternatives, and for whom the need to create some kind of lighting – any kind of lighting – is what really matters. That’s why the ‘Strobist approach’ was developed, even if not by the site that promotes it so well.

But the approach has developed beyond all recognition and is now hailed as an alternative to studio lighting, with very complicated (and very expensive) flash equipment, a multitude of top-end radio triggers, and fingers of both hands firmly crossed, hoping that the complicated linking systems all actually work… Of course, not everyone advocates using a host of overpriced branded hotshoe flashes, there are others who do wonderful work using a collection of cheap and cheerful stuff too.

Of course, all approaches to lighting have both advantages and disadvantages – but why do I prefer to use ‘real’ studio lighting whenever possible (either mains or battery powered)?
Basically 5 reasons (5 if you include cost).
1. The ability to shape the light. Please see this article. Of course, you can shape the light using hotshoe flashes but the light shaping tools available for hotshoe flashes, whether home made or bought, are nowhere near as good as those available for studio flashes. Where can you get a fresnel spot or a focussing spot for a hotshoe flash? What’s the point of using a 3” diameter beauty dish when the job calls for one 10 x the size? How can you get a true softbox light with a hotshoe flash fitted with a fixed reflector, when the light needs to bounce around inside the softbox, not just light the inner diffuser?
2. And then there’s the question of power. People ask endless questions about flash power and I haven’t got a lot to add to this, I’ve given my views in this article. But the fact of the matter is that hotshoe flashes produce very little power compared to decent quality studio flashes. True, the guide numbers tend to be fairly high (if exaggerated) but those guide numbers are obtained by using super-efficient reflectors, not by actual power. The march of technology and the improvements to high ISO image quality is definitely helping the hotshoe flash users here, because the better high ISO quality of todays digital cameras means that high ISO is nowhere near as bad as it was even a couple of years ago – but still a long way behind the native ISO quality.
3. And then there’s colour temperature to consider. Decent quality studio flashes produce very consistent colour temperature and hotshoe flashes don’t. Whether that’s important or not, or just how important it is, depends on personal needs as well as on the type of photography. Again, the needs of photojournalists and family portrait photographers can be very different from advertising photographers.
4. And then there’s usage to consider, which is related to power and image quality. My guess is that a high ISO was used for this photo but I can’t tell because the exif data has been stripped out. The simple fact of the matter is that using high ISO settings to make up for inadequate power is fine for internet use or newsprint, but not for large prints. People like me, who often need to produce very high quality and very large prints for uses such as trade exhibitions (where they get viewed from extremely close distances) need to start off with the best possible image quality.

And finally, I’d like to comment on this point.
With all due respect Garry, I'm not convinced that your feelings on the subject are balanced, I still feel that as you have access to gear the rest of us mortals don't have so freely, you don't consider the capabilities very fairly.

No, my views probably aren’t balanced, simply because I’ve used both approaches and because most of my own work is studio based.

As for equipment, I made my choices years ago. I decided that Bron was the best choice for me but simply couldn’t afford it at that time so I went for the top quality range produced by a 2nd-rate alternative (that many forum readers probably think is the bees knees) and spent a lot of money on flash equipment and a great deal more on light shaping tools. All paid for with my own money, because at that time I didn’t have a manufacturer who wanted me to advise them on their product development. True, I now have a very full range of Lencarta equipment in my studio but if I didn’t then I’d have bought it anyway.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I agree with you, Garry, the main benefit of speedlights for me is portability, but on a pound-for-pound basis they make for a very expensive lighting setup with (as you point out) limited power. Sure, you can cobble a kit together for under £100, but if you start down the SB-900/Pocket Wizard route then costs add up dramatically.

I'd be interested to hear what you make of the Alien Bee lights, they appear to offer power outputs near to studio lights whilst still maintaining the portability that is treasured by the Strobist movement...

 

[AliB]

I need both.

Simples.

For the very reasons Garry has given. I use studio lights where space and time allow and flashguns (both Canon and Vivitar) where I can't use studio lights.

There is a place to be using very portable solutions even when a battery powered studio light would be better technically and that it time and portability. Take a wedding shot that I love. Photographer put a flashgun outside on the lawn and fired it back through the window of a large room. Took him all of two minutes and the gear folded down into a very portable kit. Yes a studio head with more power would have been the technical choice but the sheer portability of a flashgun can create some wonderful pictures.

 

[purpleclouds]

And a great way of creating light, especially for photojournalists and others who need to shoot on location without the need to carry around delicate and heavy alternatives, and for whom the need to create some kind of lighting – any kind of lighting – is what really matters. That’s why the ‘Strobist approach’ was developed, even if not by the site that promotes it so well.

To be honest with you, you summed it up nicely here!

I don't know anyone who has ever compared a strobist set up to be equal to a studio kit, but at the end of the day, you use the tool which is best suited to the job and the situation. I don't believe anyone should be made to choose between the two. It's like asking a surgeon to choose between his scalpel and his anesthetic (it's late ok... )

 

[Tyke Tiler]

.....But the approach has developed beyond all recognition and is now hailed as an alternative to studio lighting, with very complicated (and very expensive) flash equipment, a multitude of top-end radio triggers, and fingers of both hands firmly crossed, hoping that the complicated linking systems all actually work… Of course, not everyone advocates using a host of overpriced branded hotshoe flashes, there are others who do wonderful work using a collection of cheap and cheerful stuff too.

The eyes have it. If that is not a biased, disproportionate, unbalanced and heavily misleading opinion which I would advise anyone to steer well clear from then I really don't know what is. :shrug:

Hot shoe flashes are not a replacement for studio flashes Garry but they are an alternative. Period.
There is no argument, contest or debate, to attempt one would be very foolish.
I see you have avoided answering the questions in my post which you have now devoted a thread too. How about assessing whether Dustin Diaz's project would be feasible or possible with studio flash heads or if you think they would be the right tool for the job?

The light shaping and modification argument is getting pretty stale and tiresome.
More effective mods and shapers are released as time goes by and although there is still far more available to studio flashes there's more than enough to support a fully portable speedlight set up, I advise you to look at the excellent work by many photographers a little closer.

The points you make regarding expense are very questionable and despite our previous conversation here with regard to the available triggering systems being identical to both systems and impossible to use as a con against hot shoe flashes, you raise it yet again. :shrug:

You may ask 'Why the hell is this guy on my case?'

Well I'll explain.

You Sir, are a teacher. Someone who people will come to when they seek knowledge.
My opinion of teachers is to provide balanced information that allows the listener to make wise decisions based on fact and I'm afraid this is not what is apparent.

I'm done with debating. There are benefits and also disadvantages to both systems.

Todays photographer will appreciate both approaches with all the pro's and con's in mind and will form a balanced decision in which to use for the given circumstances.

T.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Tomas,

I hope I'm wrong but it seems to me that you're taking this personally. If so, then I apologise for upsetting you because that isn't my intention.

I see you have avoided answering the questions in my post which you have now devoted a thread too. How about assessing whether Dustin Diaz's project would be feasible or possible with studio flash heads or if you think they would be the right tool for the job?

No, I haven't avoided your question, I just didn't address it. You may well be right, hotshoe flashes may well have been the right tool for this project. They sometimes are and no one approach is invariably right for every situation or for every person. I have a friend, one of the very best fashion shooters, who as I write is setting up a calendar shoot in the south of France, using his portable studio flash. With a lot of people there and horrendous shooting costs (models, art director, MUA, assistants and the like) he simply sticks to a system that he knows will deliver exactly what he wants rather than relying on one that can't produce the results he needs.

In the other thread, you said that the triggering needs are the same regardless of whether hotshoe flash or studio flash are used. Yes you did, but repeating it doesn't make it right. Here is the relevant extract

Plus you consistanly seem to avoid that whether your using the top of the line Profoto or a SB unit, the triggering systems are identical. Taking CLS away from the discussion, the options in triggering manual light sources are the same.

I agree with you about the need to trigger the lights. Basically, people have a choice of unreliable, cheap triggering methods, messy and unreliable wires or expensive solutions like PW. PW are the perfect solution but horrendously expensive if using a collection of otherwise cheap hotshoe flashes. Portable (battery powered) or mains powered studio lights only need ONE radio receiver in most situations.

The light shaping and modification argument is getting pretty stale and tiresome.
More effective mods and shapers are released as time goes by and although there is still far more available to studio flashes there's more than enough to support a fully portable speedlight set up, I advise you to look at the excellent work by many photographers a little closer.

Shaping the light is what lighting is ALL about and, although the range of available tools IS growing I can't see the day when the most useful, creative tools such as focussing and fresnel spots will ever be available and I can't see a technical solution to the problem of having to use flashguns with fixed reflectors - which most flashguns have. And, even if these technical problems can be resolved, and even if there is enough demand to make it happen, I can't see that hotshoe flashes will ever be able to produce enough power to actually use these tools.

You Sir, are a teacher. Someone who people will come to when they seek knowledge.
My opinion of teachers is to provide balanced information that allows the listener to make wise decisions based on fact and I'm afraid this is not what is apparent.

Sort of. Actually I'm a photographer but I also teach studio lighting on a 1 to 1 basis and spend 1 day per term at a university, doing the same on a class basis. But what people want to learn from me is studio lighting, I don't teach on lighting generally and so don't influence them to make equipment choices, any more than Jeremy Clarkeson influences people to buy a Bugatti that cost £5M to build just because he thinks it's the best car in the world. He knows that his viewers know that the Bugatti is a bit heavy on the petrol and that there isn't any room for the kids and the dog, and I know that my pupils know that I'm teaching studio photography.

Todays photographer will appreciate both approaches with all the pro's and con's in mind and will form a balanced decision in which to use for the given circumstances.

I agree with that. People should make choices based on facts. They shouldn't be told that studio flash is the only solution, all of the time because hotshoe flashes are clearly more convenient for a lot of location shoots.
But, by implication, they shouldn't be told that hotshoe flashes are a good alternative to studio flash because frankly that's nonsense - my only reason for advocating the right horse for the right course is that most people only have a limited budget and a limited amount of commitment, and if they buy the wrong tools for the job then they're very likely to be disappointed with the results and give up - especially if, like many people, they think that studio photography is just a couple of lights with softboxes or umbrellas but later want to move on to more creative work. I try to steer them towards good quality studio lighting because I want them to make the right choices and to grow as photographers.

 

[Kryptix]

I'm a newbie at lighting so I can't really comment, but I love my 580EX II's for carrying around and setting up where you couldn't set up big studio lights. You can get some mad, crazy photos. I'd love a studio with expensive lighting gear but at the moment I cannot justify that.

 

[purpleclouds]

But still, who has ever said that a hot shoe flash system would be a replacement for a studio kit?

 

[Garry Edwards]

But still, who has ever said that a hot shoe flash system would be a replacement for a studio kit?

Strobist.

 

[welly]

But the approach has developed beyond all recognition and is now hailed as an alternative to studio lighting, with very complicated (and very expensive) flash equipment, a multitude of top-end radio triggers, and fingers of both hands firmly crossed, hoping that the complicated linking systems all actually work… Of course, not everyone advocates using a host of overpriced branded hotshoe flashes, there are others who do wonderful work using a collection of cheap and cheerful stuff too.

I agree with most of what you've said, I personally have gone for the strobist approach, mainly because I don't have the space to set up studio lights and secondly I don't tend to do that kind of photography. I do dabble with shooting models from time to time and tend to be on location as opposed to in a studio and so a couple of speedlights and a couple of portable light modifiers is just the ticket.

Not sure I would agree with this though, "a multitude of top-end radio triggers, and fingers of both hands firmly crossed, hoping that the complicated linking systems all actually work…"

I'm using Elinchrom Skyports for triggering my lights. There's nothing complicated about them at all. They're found in top end Elinchrom lighting equipment, which I understand is some of the best studio lighting equipment you can get. And there's certainly no finger crossing needed. They fire every time without fail.

I don't see what is different to using Skyports with hot shoe flashes, or Pocket Wizards, which appears to me to be the the defacto standard in studios, as opposed to using them with studio lights? What do you use to trigger your studio lights? Cables?

 

[purpleclouds]

Strobist.

Example?

As far as I'm concerned, anything I've read on that (or related) blog has always been on location work...where flash guns were the easiest set up to use.

They got the results, so why shouldn't they use that gear?

You could use an f4 lens or a f2.8 lens at f8 and get the same photo...what difference does it really make?

 

[welly]

Strobist.

But that is only one guy (and his Flickr minions, of course). And I'm not sure he's said that hot shoe flashes are a replacement for studio lights, just an alternative.

 

[AliB]

There is a case for using a battery powered studio light outdoors and that is where the big yellow thing in the sky needs to be balanced with flash. That's when a flashgun really is just not powerful enough.

 

[Rob.Marsh]

But still, who has ever said that a hot shoe flash system would be a replacement for a studio kit?

Strobist.

Why small flashes? Because that's all you really need start your journey into high-end lighting techniques.

Larger strobes have their place, but they tend to spend a lot of time in trunks and stuffed under beds. But the small, everyday strobe is always in your waistpack ready to go. And it can yield great results when used more effectively and creatively. For example, the photo of the wind tunnel at the top left was lit with one small, shoe-mount flash - set on only 1/4 power.

See? You don't necessarily need all that heavy, expensive gear. Heck, we don't limit ourselves to small flashes, either. You'll find all kinds of ideas for other ways to light on the cheap. (You'll never walk down the lighting aisle at Home Depot the same way again.)

I'm not sure that Strobist does, its just set up to offer ideas and techniques aimed at using flashguns. I'm sure I have also seen posts about studio kit there in the past too.

This strikes me like the Nikon V Cannon V other manufacturers debate. The bottom line is that they are all tools to help us produce photographs. In every trade there will always be different techniques that achieve the same goal. So long as the end product is liked, does it really make a difference which lighting system was used to get there? Will it change the way we view and appreciate the photo, probably not.

 

[purpleclouds]

I'm not sure that Strobist does, its just set up to offer ideas and techniques aimed at using flashguns. I'm sure I have also seen posts about studio kit there in the past too.

This strikes me like the Nikon V Cannon V other manufacturers debate. The bottom line is that they are all tools to help us produce photographs. In every trade there will always be different techniques that achieve the same goal. So long as the end product is liked, does it really make a difference which lighting system was used to get there? Will it change the way we view and appreciate the photo, probably not.

I think Garry should worry a little less about how other people work and get on with his own thing (No offence meant there and I hope none was read)

It just seems a bit of a none starter on the debate front! Chalk and cheese and all that...

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm not sure that Strobist does, its just set up to offer ideas and techniques aimed at using flashguns. I'm sure I have also seen posts about studio kit there in the past too.

This strikes me like the Nikon V Cannon V other manufacturers debate. The bottom line is that they are all tools to help us produce photographs. In every trade there will always be different techniques that achieve the same goal. So long as the end product is liked, does it really make a difference which lighting system was used to get there? Will it change the way we view and appreciate the photo, probably not.

Yes, that's what it says NOW. It used to say something entirely different.

I think Garry should worry a little less about how other people work and get on with his own thing (No offence meant there and I hope none was read)

It just seems a bit of a none starter on the debate front! Chalk and cheese and all that...

I don't worry at all about how other people work - their choice - and I do get on with my own thing. What I do worry about though is people being fed information that misleads them, and I worry about that because I'm passionate about lighting and want people to be presented with good, honest and factual information so that they can make their own choices.

 

[Rob.Marsh]

I'll have to take your word for that one mate, I only came accross strobist a year ago. Although the post I quoted was posted on 28th of feb 2006.

Its nice to see your passionate Garry.

 

[purpleclouds]

I don't worry at all about how other people work - their choice - and I do get on with my own thing. What I do worry about though is people being fed information that misleads them, and I worry about that because I'm passionate about lighting and want people to be presented with good, honest and factual information so that they can make their own choices.

That's a fair enough point, although to be honest, I still don't see the strobist 'style' to be 'marketed' to be in competition with studio strobes.

I see it as an alternative for certain situations. He even says in one of the DVDs that there are times when studio strobes would be better for the job!

The strobist 'style' is very much DIY, experimenting and so on...it's good for those who want to play about with lighting cheaply.

Then again, you can use it as a pro set up but it costs the Earth (I should know...I just bought Pocket Wizards ). I could have gotten a studio kit for the same price but that isn't what I need. I need the light weight and flexibility.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Well, I think this is a useful debate, if we manage to keep personalities out of it and manage to avoid making assumptions about motives, experience and so on.

I have never been against the 'Strobist approach' in fact I'm all for it, when it's the best choice. I just don't want people to be misled into believing that any single approach is right for all situations, i.e. that everything that studio lights can do can be done well or even adequately with hotshoe flashes. As I've always said, and always will say, it's horses for courses and no one approach is the right horse for every course.

 

[Rob.Marsh]

Your quite right Gary, no one should be mis led into thinking its the only approach.

All my lighting is currently done on the cheap end of the strobist scale/technique. Simply due to lack of storage and room to use a studio kit, plus not having the budget for a studio kit. I'd love one though, I did a portrait course recently and really enjoyed using studio lights. I somehow felt a little more in control. Can't explain why mind you!!

 

[david1701]

I do almost everything on location and a lot of the time have to walk a fair way to it, this makes speedlights and simple modifiers a far better choice than flash heads for portability. Also the fact that you are very limited on power and recycle times I think helps make you think about photography, though I have yet to use proper studio strobes (playing with hot lights soon maybe......

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I don't worry at all about how other people work - their choice - and I do get on with my own thing. What I do worry about though is people being fed information that misleads them, and I worry about that because I'm passionate about lighting and want people to be presented with good, honest and factual information so that they can make their own choices.

Really? You mean like this:

.....But the approach has developed beyond all recognition and is now hailed as an alternative to studio lighting, with very complicated (and very expensive) flash equipment, a multitude of top-end radio triggers, and fingers of both hands firmly crossed, hoping that the complicated linking systems all actually work… Of course, not everyone advocates using a host of overpriced branded hotshoe flashes, there are others who do wonderful work using a collection of cheap and cheerful stuff too.

Sorry but this is precisely why I question your comments. It's not a balanced opinion and your having the precise opposite effect to which you intend.

You can't protest that you praise both methods fairly after saying things like '... fingers of both hands firmly crossed, hoping that the complicated linking systems all actually work… '.

This is why I am repeating myself: The 'complicated linking systems' that you suggest are employed with hot shoe triggering that require the 'crossing of both fingers on both hands', are precisely the same options available to trigger studio flashes.

Explain how you think this exaggeration is adding to fair assessment.

Also, and this may be the area that I find a little off color (so to speak), is the bitterness toward Strobist. I've read a fair few digs from you concerning the info that's available.

I have never been against the 'Strobist approach' in fact I'm all for it, when it's the best choice. I just don't want people to be misled into believing that any single approach is right for all situations, i.e. that everything that studio lights can do can be done well or even adequately with hotshoe flashes. As I've always said, and always will say, it's horses for courses and no one approach is the right horse for every course.

I disagree, you aren't helping folk make the best choice with the comments I draw attention to in the second paragraph of this post.

Dave Hobby has a preference with hot shoes and he is of the school of thought that encourages you to make your own decisions.

I do not recall anyone, ever suggesting that speedlights are a replacement to higher power units.

They are merely an alternative in conditions where output is a non issue.

If you don't want people to:

to avoid making assumptions about motives, experience and so on.

Then offer a more fairer argument. You seem to discourage instead of inform.

Tomas,

I hope I'm wrong but it seems to me that you're taking this personally. If so, then I apologise for upsetting you because that isn't my intention.

No apologies needed Garry, I'm not upset at all, I am questioning what I see in front of me. Never the less I thank you for the thought, not many folk do offer apologies when they do not need to.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Well, I think this is a useful debate,....

Having only just noticed the actual title of the thread, there really is no debate to either or.

The answer is both.