Studio Lights,

Barney

Barney

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,043
Name
Wayne
Edit My Images
No
A question from me,

IS there a difference in light quality between systems or is all the quality coming from the modifier?

For some reason I seem to prefer Bowens light rather than Elinchrom and I do not understand why, or if there is even a quantative difference.
 
Good question . . .

"Light quality" is very subjective, and pretty meaningless really, we can't measure it, we can't quantify it and I don't know what it means.
But, in general terms, I would say that modifiers make a massive difference to whatever light quality is, and the actual light can make some difference, so it's very worthwhile to buy modifiers that are properly designed, properly made and are made from the right materials. Softboxes are products that vary enormously in the quality of their light, for example, and I wrote a tutorial explaining this here https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/which-is-the-right-softbox-for-you.154/

But there are differences between flash units too, although nearly all current flash units are pretty good compared to those of many years ago.
But there are two very different operating systems, and the old one, which basically relied on a combination of switching out capacitors and using a potentiometer to reduce power output, can cause pretty dramatic variations of colour temperature at different power settings, so if we include colour temperature - and we should - as a quality element then basically we should avoid this type if we want consistent colour temperature, and there can also be wide variation in power output too, between flashes, and especially when the power is turned down low. These flash heads tend to be at the cheaper end.

Many are now IGBT - insulated-gate bipolar transistor - and all modern flashguns and most of the better studio flash heads use this technology. Basically, regardless of the power setting, the flash always fires at the same power, and so is always fired at the same voltage, which produces extremely consistent colour temperature. Turning down the power, say from full power to 1/128th power, means that the 1/128th power flash only lasts for 1/128th as long as when it's at full power.

There are a tiny number of really terrible flash heads still around, the price should give them away but in case it doesn't, just don't buy anything that has a fixed, non-removable reflector.

You mentioned systems; flashguns and studio flash. Both have their place, but studio flash is much better in the studio, mainly because they are specifically designed to be used with modifiers. Most (not all) flashguns have a fixed reflector, which makes them usable but far from ideal for use with most modifiers.

Does this help? If not, come back with more questions:)
 
I have Elinchrom and Godox bowens mount flash heads. I haven't noticed any difference in their consistency of colour temperature;t they are very good. As Garry says, the modifier you're using makes a massive difference, so maybe you prefer the Bowens mount modifiers you have used.
 
I've used loads of different ones over the years, I cant say I've noticed much difference. The only problems I ever had were with Courtenay flashes, they had issues with I think the Canon T90? It was the polarity of the camera, you had to get a special reverse polarity sync lead, then they worked fine (still have it somewhere).
 
The feeling expressed by the OP is worded in very broad terms. It is difficult to provide relevant feedback based solely on such a vaguely defined impression. Let's not however confuse two different issues: the temperature of the light, which is a scientific, objective information that can be measured; and the quality of the light, which is subjective and hugely impacted by any modifiers added to the flash head.

A temperature-accurate light can also be modified by a non-neutral modifier —coffee-stained umbrella, anyone? :D
 
Blue439 said:
The feeling expressed by the OP is worded in very broad terms. It is difficult to provide relevant feedback based solely on such a vaguely defined impression. Let's not however confuse two different issues: the temperature of the light, which is a scientific, objective information that can be measured; and the quality of the light, which is subjective and hugely impacted by any modifiers added to the flash head.

A temperature-accurate light can also be modified by a non-neutral modifier —coffee-stained umbrella, anyone? :D
Click to expand...
There is also an element of multiple meanings of the word quality.
In addition to the 'artistic' meaning, when discussing lightings systems the word quality also covers things such as consistency and reliability - so a system where multiple lights (possibly different models) at different power settings all produce the output of the same colour temperature could be described as having a better quality of light than one where there was a significant variation between different models and different power settings.
If you start to add in things like constant LED lights, then a low or high CRI might be described as providing low or high quality of light.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I've used loads of different ones over the years, I cant say I've noticed much difference. The only problems I ever had were with Courtenay flashes, they had issues with I think the Canon T90? It was the polarity of the camera, you had to get a special reverse polarity sync lead, then they worked fine (still have it somewhere).
Click to expand...
The old Courtenay flashes were terrible, and basically gave out a horrid blue light at anywhere near full power. The joke at the time was that if you were in a big hurry, just strap a Courtenay flash to the top of your car, everyone else will think you're police and get out of the way:)
 
Thanks for the thought provoking replies, I will try to quantify why I have a preference and see if it is measurable in any way
 
Barney said:
Thanks for the thought provoking replies, I will try to quantify why I have a preference and see if it is measurable in any way
Click to expand...
It could simply be colour temperature. The subconscious tends to find warm colours both brighter and more appealing.

A colour checker card would soon tell you if there is a difference.
 
juggler said:
It could simply be colour temperature. The subconscious tends to find warm colours both brighter and more appealing.

A colour checker card would soon tell you if there is a difference.
Click to expand...
I will get one of those, and have a look.

Thanks
 
juggler said:
'Quality of Light' isn't measurable.

Intensity, direction, duration, decay profile, coherence, wavelength, spread, consistency & spectrum all are. And there are bound to be some properties I've missed.
Click to expand...
Right. And yet, somehow the quality of the light is more than the sum of its separately measurable parts... ;)
 
I can see it the resulting images but cannot explain it adequately.

is seems to wrap around far better.

I will set both up later and have another look.
 
Barney said:
I can see it the resulting images but cannot explain it adequately.
Click to expand...
And this is the challenge:) I know porn when I see it, or an attractive car, or anything else that's subjective, but explaining it can be difficult.
Barney said:
is seems to wrap around far better.
Click to expand...
It can't, all things being equal. "Wrap around" is a subjective judgement but is based on objective criteria, i.e. if the light is larger, say a bigger softbox, or is closer, or if the softbox is badly designed and spreads the light around more, then the wraparound effect will be greater.
Barney said:
I will set both up later and have another look.
Click to expand...
So, unless you can fit the same modifier to each flash head, which is very unlikely, you'll get different results, which comes back to what everyone has said - the differences relate to the modifier, not to the flash head.
 
OK I give up, :)

The light is "fuller" and "more complete"
 
Barney said:
I can see it the resulting images but cannot explain it adequately.

is seems to wrap around far better.

I will set both up later and have another look.
Click to expand...
You're very right. “Wraparound” is one of those non-measurable factors that is nevertheless very obvious to the human eye, to our perception of the “quality of light”.

My lighting Bible has for a long time been (and still is) Light : Science and Magic, by Hunter, Biver and Fuqua (Focal Press Publishing), and it’s not for nothing that those highly qualified experts chose to include the word “magic” in the title... :cool:
 
Blue439 said:
Right. And yet, somehow the quality of the light is more than the sum of its separately measurable parts... ;)
Click to expand...
is it?


Blue439 said:
You're very right. “Wraparound” is one of those non-measurable factors that is nevertheless very obvious to the human eye, to our perception of the “quality of light”.

My lighting Bible has for a long time been (and still is) Light : Science and Magic, by Hunter, Biver and Fuqua (Focal Press Publishing), and it’s not for nothing that those highly qualified experts chose to include the word “magic” in the title... :cool:
Click to expand...

It's a very useful book - but the portraiture chapter barely scratches the surface compared to the others.
 
juggler said:
Please can you post two images which demonstrate this difference? Then we'll understand what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you think "we" is in your "we'll understand" above. We understand just fine what he says. You probably rather mean "I". ;)
 
juggler said:
Please can you post two images which demonstrate this difference? Then we'll understand what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...

Blue439 said:
I'm not sure what you think "we" is in your "we'll understand" above. We understand just fine what he says. You probably rather mean "I". ;)
Click to expand...
Well, I don't have that level of self-confidence, so although I can guess, I don't know. Comparative images would help me to understand.
Blue439 said:
You're very right. “Wraparound” is one of those non-measurable factors that is nevertheless very obvious to the human eye, to our perception of the “quality of light”.

My lighting Bible has for a long time been (and still is) Light : Science and Magic, by Hunter, Biver and Fuqua (Focal Press Publishing), and it’s not for nothing that those highly qualified experts chose to include the word “magic” in the title... :cool:
Click to expand...
Yes, "Magic" is a very good marketing term:)
It's a good book, I have one of the early editions, but it's basically just a cookbook, with very little explanation.
 
Blue439 said:
You're very right. “Wraparound” is one of those non-measurable factors that is nevertheless very obvious to the human eye, to our perception of the “quality of light”.

My lighting Bible has for a long time been (and still is) Light : Science and Magic, by Hunter, Biver and Fuqua (Focal Press Publishing), and it’s not for nothing that those highly qualified experts chose to include the word “magic” in the title... :cool:
Click to expand...
Thanks for that reference, I did an amazon search and the clever thing tells me I bought the book in 2014......

Now to find it and have a re- read.

I am setting up for a couple of images see if its just me who can see a difference, as Garry said the reflectors are not compatible so might try a bare bulb also.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, "Magic" is a very good marketing term:)
Click to expand...
Probably is, generally speaking. General speak is hardly relevant here, however, and I do give the authors enough credit to believe that they would not have accepted to include that word in the title if they thought it was just marketing hype —assuming that the idea to include it wasn't theirs to begin with, which is probably was, judging by the contents inside.
 
Blue439 said:
I'm not sure what you think "we" is in your "we'll understand" above. We understand just fine what he says. You probably rather mean "I". ;)
Click to expand...
Do please explain, I'm clearly too stupid.
Blue439 said:
Yes it is. Once again, I will refer you to the use of the word "magic" in the book's title. :cool:
Click to expand...
I entirely disagree.

Light is precisely the sum of its parts, nothing more, nothing less. It's Physics.

The emotional response elicited from a viewer of an image is much harder to explain.

You can probably tell that I'm easily irritated by people conflating the two. But then I've been both a professional physicist and a professional artist during my life so the difference kind of matters to me.
 
juggler said:
Do please explain, I'm clearly too stupid.
Click to expand...
I do not think it would be worth the time and effort. I’ve been there before. Let’s just say that you must be right and so everyone will walk away happy, shall we?
 
Some time ago the admins made the mistake of demoting me to moderator:) So, wearing my moderator hat, let's keep it friendly . . .
By all means disagree about the topic, but kick the ball, not the player.
 
Barney said:
I am setting up for a couple of images see if its just me who can see a difference, as Garry said the reflectors are not compatible so might try a bare bulb also.
Click to expand...
You could try using a sheet of diffusion fabric of some kind - that would mitigate any differences in the geometry of the flash tube & built in reflector. Even tracing paper should suffice for an experiment like this.
 
Barney said:
A question from me,

IS there a difference in light quality between systems or is all the quality coming from the modifier?

For some reason I seem to prefer Bowens light rather than Elinchrom and I do not understand why, or if there is even a quantative difference.
Click to expand...
I've always had issues with bowens with consistency with its flashes. Don't know if they have improved with their newer models. The only issue with Elinchrom is the limited choice of modifiers with an elinchrom mount. But the ones they do have is enough to do most lighting setups.
 
wblati said:
I've always had issues with bowens with consistency with its flashes. Don't know if they have improved with their newer models. The only issue with Elinchrom is the limited choice of modifiers with an elinchrom mount. But the ones they do have is enough to do most lighting setups.
Click to expand...
It depends on how far into history you go back. The very old Bowens lights were always known for being extremely well-built, but their very basic electrics resulted in lack of consistency, and I thought that they were slow to improve their technology. Later models, branded Bowens but made in China by others, were much more consistent. Elinchrom has always (IMO) been better in terms of electrics/electronics, but some might say not great in terms of build quality, and some may say that things got worse once they started production in India. But it depends, I used to have a LOT of their pro range, which I found to be excellent for their time. Definitely second-tier, compared say to Bron, but still very good, and also affordable.
 
I have Broncolour Siros, all bells and whistles, a couple of grand for a pair, and I have several old second hand workhorse Bowens that you can pick up for under £100 each. I use the same mods on both, and I much prefer the light from the Bowens! I only use the Siros for when I don't have a power as they're battery monoblocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top