I am looking for ways to decrease the power in my novatron lights....

I had a studio setup on location and no matter what I did I was shooting hot...I had 45in umbrellas and shot at 250ws (the minimum) on my power supply...I had the subject at 8-10ft or so from the lights.

Is it feasible to get diffusion material or gels with barndoors and put them on between the heads and the umbrellas?

I am concerned about the elasticized "socks" I've seen on the net with the heat of the heads.

any other ideas...some locations don't allow for more distance between the subject and the lghts, thats why I am thinking modifiers of some sort may be best.

Extending the cable between the pack and the head, either with a longer cable or with an extension, will knock the output down.

I don’t see why a sock wouldn’t work, turn the modeling light off once you have set up. I can’t see the flash tube melting a sock.

Use softboxes instead of brollies, then you can always add an extra layer of diffusion material.

Brian A

opfoto wrote: I am looking for ways to decrease the power in my novatron lights....

Is it feasible to get diffusion material or gels...put them on between the heads and the umbrellas?

Yes, and you can often clip the ND gel to the head with spring clips; just "arch" it to allow for cooling air to flow.

opfoto wrote: ...any other ideas...some locations don't allow for more distance between the subject and the lghts...

If the pack has multiple outlets, and if you have extra heads, you can connect multiple heads to the pack and aim an unused head (or heads) away from the subject. The ouput from the pack will be divided amongst the heads.

If all else fails, you can shoot at a smaller aperture, and than simulate shallow DoF with software. (This helps with nailing focus on location as well.)

Another possibility when using an umbrella is to jam (some) segments of black paper under the spokes.

Novatron has dirt cheap Gel Gaskets, but i have no clue how they attach to the reflector. With older Elinchrom reflectors or Multiblitz you would need the Barndoors, too.
ND filters might give you better control then diffussion filters.

hugowolf -
I like the extension cord idea....you never know when you might need it for its real purpose too!

I was concerned about the "sock" burning, you are right though if the modeling light is turned off there should be nothing to worry about....flash duration is too quick

as far as softboxes....not sure if I can still locate the mounting rings for the lights they are rather old....will def check into that...

BrianO-
Gonna look at this as an alternative (read as cheap) method....I like cheap and there are many types of material I can use....

The pack has 4 outlets and I have 4 heads...never even gave it a thought.....That may be the best solution...I'll test it out tonight when I get home and measure the output to see if that will drop the power by the stop or two that I want...

I was trying to avoid the DoF software changes....rather get it in camera.....old school thinking!

PeterBerressm-
Good Idea....that may just work using alternating spokes as a guide....will test that too!

Visualist... I looked into the add on modifiers but was trying to avoid the expense..the cost of the gels, holders, etc all ad up and right now the funding isn't there...I ultimately may have to purchase them but wanted to try the DIY ideas 1st.

Thanks for the ideas.....I appreciate it!

opfoto wrote: ...I was trying to avoid the DoF software changes....rather get it in camera.....old school thinking!

Well, for us old school types another option is to put a neutral density filter on the lens. That works for ambient as well as for strobes, and is how I'd get large apertures / shallow DoF in bright light "back in the day."

The disadvantage is that good, optically-correct ND filters aren't cheap, and you need different sizes (or adapters) for different-diameter lenses.

I thought about the neutral density filters but again cost is a issue....and I often thought that it would be difficult to see thru for focusing etc... I used them years ago but remember having a difficult time with them.....Could have been off brand QC issue but I can't quite remember.

Have been giving some additional thought to making my own slip on modifiers since I posted originally. I found something that diffuses the light and decreases output by 1 stop with each layer.

Thanks......

Cost is an issue? 20$? Seriuosly?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/38380-REG/Norman_810551_810551_Neutral_Density_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/38378-REG/Norman_810557_ND_10_Pack_of_3.html

A head extension will only knock a 1/3 to 1/2 a stop off of light output. By adding a sock you effectively change the nature of the modifier, in your case the umbrella. You'll get lots of spill which may affect fill exposure and WB. The best way to reduce light output without affecting the qualities of the modifier are ND gels on the head as already suggested, anything else adds to the equation.

Visualist
Sorry but I see it as adding up to more than $20. Seriously!
Please read my 2nd post where I stated I looked into some of the gels, holders etc....
Thanks

opfoto wrote: I thought about the neutral density filters but again cost is a issue....and I often thought that it would be difficult to see thru for focusing etc...

That's true, they do darken the image in the viewfinder. Everything's a trade-off. With my 7D I can switch to Live View and get a nice, bright preview on the monitor. That's not always workable when doing moving shots handheld, but it works fine for tripod shots, especially product shots and other still life images.

BrianO

I agree about the trade offs.....that is the nature of the craft. They are always there and its how you wish to use them.

I do not have the live view option available on my DSLR.....would def be a great help...

Thanks

opfoto wrote:
Visualist
Sorry but I see it as adding up to more than $20. Seriously!
Thanks



How is that?
You make no sense. Using any kind of sock or diffusion will alter the quality of light, and a set of lensfilters will cost you a lot of money and will make focusing problematic.
Nobody even suggested that gels require a special holder, and honestly, if you would've looked into gels you'd seen that larg sheets you can cut up cost around 6$. So please do explain how a couple of ND-gels and a view close pins will "add up" to a cost factor.

Visualist
I do appreciate your opinion and your willingness to share your knowledge.
I have found a resolution that will work for me.
Thank you

And i do not appreciate people who claim that an extremely cheap solution to a given problem would "add up cost" without given any explanation why this would be the case.
Which is actually pretty rude.

And ofcourse you can ignore anything anybody wrights around here.
Which is also rude.

You're welcome.

Visualist
I would like to modify upto 4 heads as required, equally also if required, ultimately as I wish.

Sorry that you feel ignored, but if you were called senseless your response would be one of Joy? I suppose not. Because of a difference in opinion, really?






Edited for typos

Thanks for the responses.

As stated I have found a solution that will work for me.

I will not post further.

I don't "feel" ignored, but you have repetedly refused to answer a simpy question regarding costs, which is btw, not a matter of opinion but basic math.
Just as using 4 heads on the same pack will reduce the min output by 4 f-stops so the amount of heads used have no impact on the costs.

But good for you the you found a solution that will work for you. I'm sure that anybody who will be confronted with the issue of too much power at min setting will greatly apreceate your sharing ;-)

PeterBerressem wrote:
Another possibility when using an umbrella is to jam (some) segments of black paper under the spokes.


Just wondering, but wouldn't this produce strange, gobbo-like shaddows? Especially if we're talking several f-stops?