I am getting more into portrait photography, and I am planning to buy one or two falshes. My questios is which of the following options makes more sence.
1. buy the PocketWizard FlexTT5 and the Mini with a flash (maybe canon 430exI or II)
2. buy a master flash (perhaps canon 580ex I or II) to go on camera and use an off camera slave flash.
also if there are other alternative, please let me know.
You won't find many portraits taken with bare strobes whether on or off-camera, do you own the strobes in question? Something like an AlienBee is a lot more powerful and versatile for the same outlay as a 580.
As Chris says, hot shoe flash isn't the ideal tool for portraiture. The Canon flashes have limited power to drive larger modifiers and no modeling lights to guide placement.
To select the best tools its helpful to understand the cause and effect of creating "soft" looking lighting. The impression of "soft" lighting and 3D shape in a 2D photo comes from contrast clues such as tone of the shadows (controlled primarily with fill) and how harsh and specular the highlights are.
Bounced flash looks softer than direct flash because it causes the light to come from more different directions. If we put an umbrella or big SB on a flash the same thing happens; a lot of light gets bounced around the room and back into the subject from different directions making the shadows lighter and the lighting look softer.The modifiers need to get relatively large before they will start wrapping the light around the features on the face like the nose, creating fuzzy edged shadows. But the impression of softness in lighting actually comes more from the overall tone of the shadow, not the sharpness of their edges with dark shadows making the light seeming "harder" than light open ones. That's where the second fill source comes into play. A second fill source placed near the camera can be used to control the tone of the shadows independently from the light produced by the "key" light creating the highlight pattern on top of the fill.
But there's another important clue in the impression lighting is soft or hard which comes from the highlights. Starting from a baseline of direct flash as larger and larger modifiers are added to the off-axis key light the first thing you'll notice is larger catchlights and smoother less specular skin highlights (i.e. fewer hot spots on shiny skin). It's possible to get very "soft" looking shadows by controlling the lighting ratio of key and fill so the shadows are light in tone, but the character of the highlights on the face will be a reflection of the size of the source and how close it is used (the relative size).
That's where the use of hot shoe flashes as the light source becomes problematical. As we put larger and larger modifiers on the flashes they become less efficient, needing to fire and higher power levels, resulting in waiting for them to recycle. Another important consideration is overheating. Canon flashes are not designed for sustained use at high power levels. That, plus the lack of modeling lights make them a less than ideal choice for serious portraits. That's not to say they can't be used for casual portraits, only that you'll find yourself working around logistical and light quality shortcomings that you wouldn't have with a pair of studio flashes.
A pair of AB800 with combined with a med. SB and 3-4' white umbrella with removable black cover would be a better way to get started. Using the two different modifiers alternately as key and fill, using the umbrella for bounce and shoot-through will teach you much of what you need to know, by comparison, about the characteristics of those sources. That experience will allow making decisions based on experience, needs and goal what to buy next.
Since it's not always logistically feasible to use studio lighting the best solution is to also have a two-flash Canon based solution for PJ-style editorial shooting and candids. For that I find the Master/Slave system built into the Canon flashes adequate if the limitations are understood. For the optical system to work the slave must be able to see the light from the Master and can't be blocked by a big modifier or blinded by direct sun outdoors. The Canon coded pre-flash signaling is also limited by the output of the Master flash, but the 580ex signals via the main flash head and has a range of 40-50' indoors and 25-30' outdoors which is adequate for most shots. That's not to say that radio slaves such as the PW or Radio Poppers aren't more convenient or perform more consistently, but if you are on a limited budget I'd suggest trying the Canon system first then buying the radio triggers when you find you actually need them.
For tips on optimizing the use of the Canon system and other more general lighting advice click the WWW link below. Studio lighting can be a bottomless money pit. See my equipment primer to understand the gear used in a typical studio.
While i agree about the AB monolights being a better solution as far as light goes, they are a bloody pain to move around on location and you have to get a power pack. I have a friend who shoots with 2 580Ex lights and does great work, he has a friend who shoots with 2 AB800s and does amazing work, his ability to control light is much higer because of the extra power and size of modifiers. The 580ex works great as a comand flash but its line of sight so..... a lot harder to pull of some shots. I vote ABs first but for the ease of mobility 2 580exIIs would be a good place. PW.... dont know, dont own them but since they dont directly impact the image i would make sure you had your light sources solid before spending cash on the triggers.
If you will be shooting in a location where power outlets are available and those cords won't bother you, then I agree with the others that monolights are a much better way to go.
If that is not the case, then the monolights may still be a better option, due to the reasons listed above. Drawbacks are portability and added cost due to the needed power packs and triggers. If the portability and/or cost is an issue for you, only then would the Canon system begin to make sense.
I personally use the Canon system (2 x 550ex + 1 x 430ex). I shoot seniors, always outdoors, never near a power outlet, often far from the car, and sometimes without an assistant. So for me, the Canon system makes more sense. I know the limitations and I work around them. With the three flashes I have two off-camera light sources controlled wirelessly (and usually in manual) from the on-camera flash. The line of sight is seldom a problem for me. I put my key in a Photoflex medium SB (almost too big for the 550) with their speedlight adapter. This keeps the flash outside of the SB so that line of sight is possible. I had to make my own adapter (very simple) to add on so that the body can be turned towards the camera while the head points into the SB (their system kind of assumes the use of a PW). This limits key placement a little, limits rim placement more (for instance, tough to do a flash directly behind the subject, but possible). In general I am happy using Canon's optical system.
Your options 1 & 2 are about the same price. So if you only need the one light source, option 1 makes more sense (more reliable, unlimited light placement). But if you will later be adding a second light source, then you will have to buy another flash plus another PW. In that case option 2 will probably be the cheaper path, but you will have to live with the limitations.
cgardner, great detailed explanations and infromation. much appreciated.
I have some freinds (female freinds) who asked me to photograph them for their make up and modeling portfolios. the make up shots would be most likely indoors, however the modeling shots would be at the beach and outdoors. This is also a good oportunity for me to build up my portfolio.
I just want to make sure that i have the right tools to do a good job before I tell them that i would photograph them.
portability is important for me for outdoor shots. I would also get some reflectors.
I am leavning towards my 1st option as of right now, and I just have to work with the limitations of flashes.
kevdav wrote:
Is TTL campability worth the extra cost of the PocketWizard FlexTT5 and the Mini, over the non TTL campatables such as AlienBee cybersync system.
If TTL metering were the only thing the ControlTL system offered, it wouldn't be worth it to me...your mileage may vary, as the saying goes.
However the ability to independantly control the output of groups of lights from the camera position, either via a mounted Canon flash or via the AC-3 Zone Controler, makes it very attractive to me.
I agree with Brian. As I mentioned above, I usually shoot with both camera and flashes in manual. But I find it very convenient to be able to control the flash output from the camera position. This is a convenience, not a requirement. You can certainly walk over and adjust your flash by hand. And with only one flash, in typical key-light positions, this might be pretty easy (depending on how high you mount the flash).
Don't overlook this advantage of the Canon system or TTL radio triggers vs. conventional radio triggers: High Speed Sync.
Outside in sunlight one gets hamstrung by "Sunny 16" when using conventional flash. If the camera sync limit is 1/250th sec, an aperture of f/11 is needed to expose the sunlit highlights below clipping. That in turn makes it difficult to eliminate distracting outdoor backgrounds with shallow DOF.
The Canon coded optical system allows High Speed FP sync at any shutter speed in TTL or M modes. There's a overall reduction in power and range, but its ideally used with wide apertures of f/4 or wider which don't require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure would. The TTL radio triggers also support High Speed FP sync. Radio Poppers simply rely the Canon optical commands while the PW has its own control method for HHS.
cgardner wrote:
The Canon coded optical system allows High Speed FP sync at any shutter speed in TTL or M modes. There's a overall reduction in power and range, but its ideally used with wide apertures of f/4 or wider which don't require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure would.
For somebody asking about the suitability of speedlights for portraiture, it's misleading to let them believe that FP mode can somehow save them power. That's practically an impossibility.
There is a reduction in power.
There is a reduction in range.
Using a wide aperture is a neccesity - as well as having to move your flash closer and using it at full power to compensate for the losses incurred.
1/250s @ f11 translates to 1/2000s @ f4 for the same ambient exposure. Unfortunately, in this same scenario your flash would only be providing the equivalent of around f1.8 and underexposing your subject by roughly 2 and a half stops more in comparison. There's no saving of power here as it would still be operating at 1/1 and your light would need to be extraordinarily close to even match where you first started from.
Even if you were only filling at -1.5 stops in the f11 example, in FP mode you would still be needing more power. It would be exactly the same with any other ratio you care to mention.
Said nothing of saving power only that when HSS is used it's better to use wider apertures so the flash power is used more effectively. That's really the point of using it, for shallow DoF to blur the background making the sharper foreground contrast and attract/hold the attention of the viewer.
I'd swear you said '... f/4 or wider which don't require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure would.' and quoted '1/250th sec, an aperture of f/11'
cgardner wrote:
There's a overall reduction in power and range, but its ideally used with wide apertures of f/4 or wider which don't require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure would.
cgardner wrote:
There's a overall reduction in power and range [when using HSS Mode], but its ideally used with wide apertures of f/4 or wider which don't require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure would.
ukphotographer wrote:
I'd swear you said '... f/4 or wider which don't require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure would.'
What, you think an f/4 exposure does require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure? That's sure not what I was taught.
BrianO wrote:
What, you think an f/4 exposure does require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure? That's sure not what I was taught.
You'd better check out your use of HSS then.. cgardner wrote:
There's a overall reduction in power and range [when using HSS Mode], but its ideally used with wide apertures of f/4 or wider which don't require as much flash power as an f/11 exposure would.
..referring to the previous example of 1/250s f11
Do you think that magically if you require to use f4 in an environment demanding f11 you can just change your aperture? Maybe you do.
I already fully explained it go and read it again.
ukphotographer wrote:
...I already fully explained it go and read it again.
I think you should read Chuck's post again; I think you're reading more into it than what he's saying.
HSS does reduce flash intensity, and it is therefore better suited for use with larger apertures than smaller ones. By using HSS, you can go to a higher shutter speed, which in turn allows a larger aperture without the ambient blowing out the highlights.
