dmacmillan wrote:
I shot weddings with two strobes, one on a bracket on the camera and the other on a monopod held by an assistant. There were no radios back then, so the monopod light was triggered by a flash slave (Wein peanut). This setup was a leg up on the other wedding shooters using a single on camera flash. The lighting was much nicer.
Funny that\'s similar to what I suggest with one exception. With a rolling stand you don\'t need an assistant to shlep the light around. I learned the technique from Monte Zucker who came up with the idea of using an IV stand to move the slave around. Back then we used flashes like this...
.. so it was a practical solution to avoiding a hernia. The rolling stand meant I could be off shooting a second wedding instead of holding Monte\'s light on a pole. It was a win-win situation, I had more fun and he earned more money that way.
Zucker was a clever guy. For his formal portraits he used window light and a reflector with a background painted on an 8\' linen roll-up window shade supported by one stand in the middle. The IV stand used for the flash was used to hold the reflector. The entire kit to shoot a wedding consisted of:
8\' window shade background
Stand for background
Larsen Reflector
IV Stand
Rolleiflex with flash bracket
2 Graflex Flashes
So for me the keep it simple / travel light \"strobist\" approach is nothing new. The only thing new was Hobby\'s wider audience which wasn\'t aware of past history. Hobby apparently wasn\'t too familiar with the fact dual flash the way you and I used it with a bracket was pretty much SOP for shooting weddings in the 70s and 80s because he was a photo journalist in the 90s. PJs don\'t usually use flash brackets and they fell out of favor over the years for weddings. Hobby it seems didn\'t \"discover\" the flash bracket and the benefits of centered fill until a couple years ago.
Radio triggers were a sensible way to Hobby to continue using his flashes made obsolete by digital bodies. But in the beginning he was a zealot with regards to cheap manual flash being the only \"ethical\" form of lighting (his description). Eventually he tried a modern TTL system (albeit with radio triggers) and found to his surprise it works and is very convenient. He\'s apparently now tried studio lighting and found it has advantages too.
We all have different goals, budgets and existing equipment. My take on Hobby\'s original approach was that it limited the potential of a modern camera and its metering to use it entirely with manual flash. Manual is better for some tasks TTL for others. The best approach is to have both available for use as needed. Speedlights are marginal substitutes for studio lights and studio lights are not very portable. The best approach is to have both sets of tools for use as needed. That\'s why I bought my set of studio lights back in 2004 and my Canon flashes in 2005 in addition to the Vivitars I still have and occasionally use.
Unlike you I don\'t have a bias against flash. Indoors when all the lighting is artificial and usually less than flattering in direction, why not improve it with flash? Outdoors I pose faces to the natural light first and then add flash at the same angles to blend it as naturally as possible. When someone makes a digital sensor that can handle the contrast of a backlit sunny day like B&W film did I\'ll retire the flashes.
Jan 17, 2012 at 12:20 AM
Previous versions of cgardner's message #10254536 « Strobist »
