[Digitalis]

The quality of light is determined by the size of the light source (and the evenness of the illumination of the emanating light surface).

Correct, four individual point light sources even at close range would make distinctly unflattering light. The whole idea of portraiture is to cast your subject in a flattering Light. this often involves Soft, Broad, controlled light. Using HSS would involve moving the light source close to the subject, which may make the subject uncomfortable. Hard lighting can be used for creative effect (I was thinking of the Denver based studio photographer: Linzi Judish [Fair warning: NSFW]) but hard lighting has limited applications in commercial portraiture .

And, No misinformation from me. but you.

Class A is correct, and raises valid criticisms. He has more knowlege of Pentax's hot shoe flash and P-TTL triggering systems than I do. Plugging your ears and going "la-la-la" isn't going to change the fact that he is right.

This is Cheap. because I never consider a pure manual lighting system.

Cheap isn't always best, sometimes in the effort we put in to get the best result cheaply costs us more than doing things properly and spending more money on the outset: False economy. I work with flash manually, with top of the line Elinchrom strobes. Sure, I can use TTL-Control systems but Camera EXIF is presently incapable of recording flash power levels into shot data. So I prefer to work manually and write down flash parameters, so If I get repeat business from a client I can setup and reproduce the flash set up precisely as it was before.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 12-12-2016 at 04:37 AM.

[andy888]

Correct, four individual point light sources even at close range would make distinctly unflattering light. The whole idea of portraiture is to cast your subject in a flattering Light. this often involves Soft, Broad, controlled light. Using HSS would involve moving the light source close to the subject, which may make the subject uncomfortable. Hard lighting can be used for creative effect (I was thinking of the Denver based studio photographer: Linzi Judish [Fair warning: NSFW]) but hard lighting has limited applications in commercial portraiture .



Class A is correct, and raises valid criticisms. He has more knowlege of Pentax's hot shoe flash and P-TTL triggering systems than I do. Plugging your ears and going "la-la-la" isn't going to change the fact that he is right.



Cheap isn't always best, sometimes in the effort we put in to get the best result cheaply costs us more than doing things properly and spending more money on the outset: False economy. I work with flash manually, with top of the line Elinchrom strobes. Sure, I can use TTL-Control systems but Camera EXIF is presently incapable of recording flash power levels into shot data. So I prefer to work manually and write down flash parameters, so If I get repeat business from a client I can setup and reproduce the flash set up precisely as it was before.

There are a lot of comparation in Youtube or elsewhere. much clear than here. Which I tend to believe more than you or ClassA.

Second. I and other 2 people have these trigger and we are OK. you, ClassA, whom have not. seems to disagree and say no. How strange.

[Digitalis]

There are a lot of comparation in Youtube or elsewhere.

Show us your sources then: youtube links will be sufficient. Preferably in English.

[andy888]

And the old debate Manual Or TTL. well I have both.

[Class A]

And, No misinformation from me. but you.

Please point out one thing that I said that is not true.

Based on your latest post you seem to think that I said something bad about your triggers. I did not. I only speculated that if you think that radio triggering is less reliable than optical triggering than this perhaps is the result of your particular trigger experience, pointing out that your statement certainly is not true in general.

If you are not sure what another person is writing, please don't accuse them.

I know how reliable more clear than you. optically, 100% because they are very close.

So, we have A: "Optical triggering (at near distances) = 100% reliable".

radio. I got no misfire in my usage. ... reliability is never a problem for me.

So, we have B: "Radio triggering = 100% reliable".

From A & B we get "Optical and Radio triggering are equally reliable", correct?

So how come, you say the following earlier?

...since this is radio and optical combination. and the flashes very near. only the radio matter the reliability.

and, ony a pair of R930 to control, so it should much reliable than the other with a reciever at each foot of flash.

Suddenly, when radio triggering is not used throughout (there is no "receiver at each foot") the whole approach becomes "...much reliable..." (which I read as "... much more reliable..." because otherwise the following particle "...than..." would not make any sense).

What are you saying?

That only using one transmitter and one receiver is 100% reliable?
Adding further receivers makes triggering less reliable?
Multiple Acon receivers are reliable but multiple radio receivers from other brands are not?

Which is it and please share your numbers on reliability that justify a statement like "... it should much reliable than the other with a reciever at each foot of flash.".

To be clear: This is not a clash of opinions. You are either simply contradicting yourself or are stating that multiple radio receivers somehow introduce unreliability (whereas one radio receiver only is a 100% reliable). In all my years of using radio triggers, I have not encountered a single case of where adding a receiver reduced reliability (with the triggers I have been using, that is).

[andy888]

Show us your sources then: youtube links will be sufficient. Preferably in English.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

---------- Post added 12-12-16 at 05:53 AM ----------

Please point out one thing that I said that is not true.

Based on your latest post you seem to think that I said something bad about your triggers. I did not. I only speculated that if you think that radio triggering is less reliable than optical triggering than this perhaps is the result of your particular trigger experience, pointing out that your statement certainly is not true in general.

If you are not sure what another person is writing, please don't accuse them.


So, we have A: "Optical triggering (at near distances) = 100% reliable".


So, we have B: "Radio triggering = 100% reliable".

From A & B we get "Optical and Radio triggering are equally reliable", correct?

So how come, you say the following earlier?

Suddenly, when radio triggering is not used throughout (there is no "receiver at each foot") the whole approach becomes "...much reliable..." (which I read as "... much more reliable..." because otherwise the following particle "...than..." would not make any sense).

What are you saying?

That only using one transmitter and one receiver is 100% reliable?
Adding further receivers makes triggering less reliable?
Multiple Acon receivers are reliable but multiple radio receivers from other brands are not?

Which is it and please share your numbers on reliability that justify a statement like "... it should much reliable than the other with a reciever at each foot of flash.".

To be clear: This is not a clash of opinions. You are either simply contradicting yourself or are stating that multiple radio receivers somehow introduce unreliability (whereas one radio receiver only is a 100% reliable). In all my years of using radio triggers, I have not encountered a single case of where adding a receiver reduced reliability (with the triggers I have been using, that is).

I said. 1 transmitter and 1 receiver to trigger multiple flashes. maybe 10, which connected by optical nearby (100% reliable nearly, in human words). its reliability formula result, IS. better than 1
transmitter and 10 receiver to 10 flashes.

Are you OK with this?

[Class A]

1 transmitter and 1 receiver to trigger multiple flashes. maybe 10, which connected by optical nearby ..., IS. better than 1 transmitter and 10 receiver to 10 flashes.

Are you OK with this?

I don't agree, for two reasons:

1. I just never had issued with multiple receivers. I haven't used ten at a time, but easily six at the same time.
2. You state yourself that radio triggering is 100% reliable for you. So how come it suddenly becomes less than 100% reliable if multiple receivers are involved? Is that your experience?

[andy888]

I don't agree, for two reasons:

1. I just never had issued with multiple receivers. I haven't used ten at a time, but easily six at the same time.
2. You state yourself that radio triggering is 100% reliable for you. So how come it suddenly becomes less than 100% reliable if multiple receivers are involved? Is that your experience?

I was using human words. man. that means very very high, very very good.

Shrug.

Suddenly, when radio triggering is not used throughout (there is no "receiver at each foot") the whole approach becomes "...much reliable..." (which I read as "... much more reliable..." because otherwise the following particle "...than..." would not make any sense).

What are you saying?

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/125-flashes-lighting-studio/335504-how-ma...#ixzz4SgWqssUg

I test it for 100%. I compared with other brand with receiver for each flash.

[Digitalis]

The youtube video has information that is subjected to gross oversimplification E.G : hot shoe mountable flashers have shorter t=0.1duration that studio flash heads - this is only true at low power settings. Studio heads are not only more powerful at 1:1* but often have shorter durations than compact IGBT flash heads.

*The Elinchrom RX1200 flash heads I work with are capable of 1/6400th at 1:1 power with the use of an optional high speed flash bulb from Elinchrom.

---------- Post added 2016-12-12 at 11:45 PM ----------

I was using human words. man

With utter disrespect for sentence structure, punctuation, and grammar. This is what has probably led to the high degree of misunderstanding, and contradictions that have caused confusion about your statements .

[andy888]

The youtube video has information that is subjected to gross oversimplification E.G : hot shoe mountable flashers have shorter t=0.1duration that studio flash heads - this is only true at low power settings. Studio heads are not only more powerful at 1:1* but often have shorter durations than compact IGBT flash heads.

*The Elinchrom RX1200 flash heads I work with are capable of 1/6400th at 1:1 power with the use of an optional high speed flash bulb from Elinchrom.

---------- Post added 2016-12-12 at 11:45 PM ----------



With utter disrespect for sentence structure, punctuation, and grammar. This is what has probably led to the high degree of misunderstanding, and contradictions that have caused confusion about your statements .

because I shoot several hundreds to find no miss fire. I am very satisfy to say 100%.. or I can reduce it to 99.xxx？to let it be 'belivable'?

[Class A]

because I shoot several hundreds to find no miss fire. I am very satisfy to say 100%.. or I can reduce it to 99.xxx？to let it be 'belivable'?

We (or at least I) am not challenging your 100% claim for optical triggering.

However, you are also claiming to have a 100% success rate with your radio triggers.

Finally, you are claiming that using one radio receiver only (-> mainly optical triggering) should be much more reliable than using multiple radio receivers (-> purely radio triggering).

All three claims cannot be true at the same time. Do you not see that?

AFAIC, you should not "Shrug" this away, but explain why your statements appear to contradict each other.

[andy888]

We (or at least I) am not challenging your 100% claim for optical triggering.

However, you are also claiming to have a 100% success rate with your radio triggers.

Finally, you are claiming that using one radio receiver only (-> mainly optical triggering) should be much more reliable than using multiple radio receivers (-> purely radio triggering).

All three claims cannot be true at the same time. Do you not see that?

AFAIC, you should not "Shrug" this away, but explain why your statements appear to contradict each other.

It is very clear this combination is more reliable then a bunch of stack receivers. and more easy to work. and What I said 100% applied to this combination and this test.

===============
[[Finally, you are claiming that using one radio receiver only (-> mainly optical triggering) should be much more reliable than using multiple radio receivers (-> purely radio triggering).]]

Yes, this combination I tested is 100% success for several hundred test. is more reliable than other brand, NOT THIS. with every receiver at their feet.

---------- Post added 12-12-16 at 07:35 AM ----------

I don't agree, for two reasons:

1. I just never had issued with multiple receivers. I haven't used ten at a time, but easily six at the same time.
2. You state yourself that radio triggering is 100% reliable for you. So how come it suddenly becomes less than 100% reliable if multiple receivers are involved? Is that your experience?

1, You use 6 or I use 10 is not the key point. they are same: many
2. I certaintly state this 100% base on my test. Mutiple receiver involved, sorry, I mean other brand.

more questions?

[andy888]

The youtube video has information that is subjected to gross oversimplification E.G : hot shoe mountable flashers have shorter t=0.1duration that studio flash heads - this is only true at low power settings. Studio heads are not only more powerful at 1:1* but often have shorter durations than compact IGBT flash heads.

*The Elinchrom RX1200 flash heads I work with are capable of 1/6400th at 1:1 power with the use of an optional high speed flash bulb from Elinchrom.

---------- Post added 2016-12-12 at 11:45 PM ----------



With utter disrespect for sentence structure, punctuation, and grammar. This is what has probably led to the high degree of misunderstanding, and contradictions that have caused confusion about your statements .

You talk about the inner work of the two. IGBT cut or some other mechanics. This are their defference. But not saying which one is better.

If I don't tell you which picture is made by which. you wouldn\'t able to point out that.

This means. the differ is naglectable. and some time this is good some times that is good. becasue the light is too complex reflected and the object vary.

So making a strudio flash is wonderful and usefull. escpecially for there are no PTTL Hss strudio in the market.

[macman24054]

Every time you double the number of flashes, you increase the output by one stop.

I stand corrected.

With multiple flash units with their output areas overlapping, it wouldn't be able to match the area a 300ws strobe could illuminate.

Light output is light output. When you shoot with modifiers you are directing what ever amount of light you are using in a certain direction. That being said, if I did not already own my speed lights and Acon triggers you are 100% that one mono light is easier and more efficient in terms of set up and only using one power source. That is why the the Godex 600 watt HSS light with a battery pack is near the top of my wish list.

[macman24054]

andy888 the only way to work in HSS is to have the flash units set to the flash with the Acon trigger set the HSS mode (not in wireless mode). This will cause that flash to act as the controller for other units. The flash with the Acon will NOT contribute to the flash it is only a controller. To get more out put you need at least 3 AF360's of 3 AF540's. The units not attached to the trigger must be set to wireless HSS. The only benefit (and the reason I put them on a 3 light bracket) of having the controller next to the wireless units is to eliminate the possibility of strong ambient causing the wireless units not to fire. I have tried this method with and without modifiers and it has yet to misfire because of the close proximity of all the units. In manual mode HSS will Not work.

edit: Using the flashes in this manner, you has to use flash compensation on the flash units and the camera.