DSLRUsers.com

Posted: **Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:48 pm**

I thought (with some coaxing from Kyle and Joe) that the poverty wizards needed testing, Kyle kindly lent me his 580EXII for the experiment. So using the 580EXII and my SB-800 I tried to paint the start line with light.

One was set up behind the starting line (SB-800) on Manual mode, 1/4 strength, this was to flash the car from behind and light up the side. The other (580EXII) was set about 2m in front of the starting line, Manual mode, 1/8 -2/3 to light up the front. I was sitting further down the start line (so the cars off the start were at about 180mm and filled full frame), the rest of the settings are ISO800, 1/160th @ f2.8, D200, 70-200 f2.8 VR.

First and last are a little hot on the front corners, I think this was from some extra light from friendly fire (i.e. other flashes). I think the solution did the job I wanted it too, and much cheaper than real Pocket Wizards. Also I think that some fresh batteries in the trigger and receivers will be a good help

Comments as always welcomed.

Posted: **Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:15 pm**

Poverty wizards? which PW alternative is this?

Posted: **Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:19 pm**

aim54x wrote:Poverty wizards? which PW alternative is this?

See this post I made

Posted: **Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:41 pm**

thanks. now for someone to get the radio poppers!

Posted: **Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:21 am**

the second and third look great.
poverty clearly pays

Posted: **Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:22 am**

bwhinnen wrote:First and last are a little hot on the front corners, I think this was from some extra light from friendly fire (i.e. other flashes).

Highly unlikely, Brett.

Consider the length of time that a flash actually takes to go off, and that for this to occur, it needs to happen during the 1/160 that your shutter is open. And that the contributing flash must be of an intensity that it doesn't, in conjunction with your flash, totally blow everything out of the water. Not impossible, but highly unlikely, and especially unlikely to occur in more than just one exposure.

You might care to look more closely at your images for any such evidence: this would very likely manifest itself with out of sync artifacts, which might appear as partial and faint dark bands along one portion or another (top or bottom) of the image.

In these two images, look more closely too at the shadows created on the front/far side of the vehicles as well as the similar shadows in the headlight and grille cavities. There is no evidence of any other contributing light source, and the shadows here are very distinct, indicating to me that perhaps their light source was just a bit too hot.

Now, consider the placement of your forward light source in relation to these hot areas and shadows: was it likely that your light caused those shadows? If so, then I suspect you have your answer.

Posted: **Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:37 am**

gstark wrote:
bwhinnen wrote:First and last are a little hot on the front corners, I think this was from some extra light from friendly fire (i.e. other flashes).

Highly unlikely, Brett.

Consider the length of time that a flash actually takes to go off, and that for this to occur, it needs to happen during the 1/160 that your shutter is open. And that the contributing flash must be of an intensity that it doesn't, in conjunction with your flash, totally blow everything out of the water. Not impossible, but highly unlikely, and especially unlikely to occur in more than just one exposure.

You might care to look more closely at your images for any such evidence: this would very likely manifest itself with out of sync artifacts, which might appear as partial and faint dark bands along one portion or another (top or bottom) of the image.

Thanks for the comments Gary, with up to ten photographers standing at the start line all competing for the same shot it happens quite often, I've even picked up someones flash from the other side of the track on more than one occasion in the shot. Given that I was standing down the track wall a bit and the others are standing close to where the front flash was located with a wide lens it is a good probability, of course so is having a little too much light from the front flash dependent on the car position as well.

Looking at the first of the images I think I agree with you as it is closer to the front flash than the other three images by about 1 - 2 metres.

Posted: **Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:18 am**

bwhinnen wrote: with up to ten photographers standing at the start line all competing for the same shot it happens quite often,

I would be very surprised, and especially so were this to not exhibit the out-of-sync artifacts that I referred to. I've been shooting various events with similar competing needs and photographers. I don't believe that it happens all that often at all.

I've even picked up someones flash from the other side of the track on more than one occasion in the shot.

That's actually a slightly different scenario, actually, and you might not be seeing what you think you're seeing.

As a slightly different scenario, that light would not be contributing to your exposure - it's on the other side of the track, and at best, it's perhaps adding a bit of backlighting. But in order for this to appear as though you're capturing their flash, what needs to occur is for their flash to simply go off while your shutter is open, without regard to any need for syncronisation.

But what you're seeing might also not actually be the flash going off: it may simply be a reflection of light (perhaps your flash) from the reflector in their's. That could easily appear as a hot spot within an image, and it could easily look like it's another flash going off, even though it isn't.

In this regard, look at the background of each of the last three images: look at the OOF highlights in the stand, and you'll see lots and lots of bright highlights. From where did these come? They're not all going to be other flashes going off, are they?

If you actually compare these between the three images in question, you'll see the same sets of reflections turning up in each of these images. It only takes one of those to be significantly closer to your camera (or one of your light sources, to be specific) and to reflect somewhat directly up your lens, and it might look as if it's a flash going off.

Bottom line is that yes, it can, and it does happen, but because of the physics involved, it happens far less frequently than may seem.

Looking at the first of the images I think I agree with you as it is closer to the front flash than the other three images by about 1 - 2 metres.

A couple of meters can make a significant difference when it comes to flash power. The last image seems to me to have been shot in about the same plane, relative to the light source. Not quite as close, but there wouldn't be more than a half meter in it. The angle of the shadow (driver's side front tyre) relative to the vehicle tells the story. The car is almost adjacent to the light source.

Posted: **Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:33 pm**

bwhinnen wrote: Also I think that some fresh batteries in the trigger and receivers will be a good help
.

Completely agree about the fresh batteries for the poverty wizards. I find that mine (4channel) misfire or nonfire quite often with my 430EX unless batteries are fresh.
Great images bar the hot spots by the way...But that can be dodged out?

Posted: **Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:07 pm**

well this shot was taken with my flash on camera...and friendly fire from the side from the other photogs standing there..it is more common to receive friendly fire while at the drags given how many guys shoot at the same time at the same subject imo.... we all tend to laugh about it when showing each other our shots...and i have one at home where i shot at a car on the other side of the track and got helped along by other flashes.

and some more examples

Posted: **Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:45 pm**

I've had friendly fire before also, on the grid following the Sandown rnd of the V8's last year. Approximately 20 shooters all firing at once. Super exposed the image.

Posted: **Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:54 pm**

gstark wrote:
bwhinnen wrote:First and last are a little hot on the front corners, I think this was from some extra light from friendly fire (i.e. other flashes).

Highly unlikely, Brett.

Consider the length of time that a flash actually takes to go off, and that for this to occur, it needs to happen during the 1/160 that your shutter is open. And that the contributing flash must be of an intensity that it doesn't, in conjunction with your flash, totally blow everything out of the water. Not impossible, but highly unlikely, and especially unlikely to occur in more than just one exposure.

You might care to look more closely at your images for any such evidence: this would very likely manifest itself with out of sync artifacts, which might appear as partial and faint dark bands along one portion or another (top or bottom) of the image.

In these two images, look more closely too at the shadows created on the front/far side of the vehicles as well as the similar shadows in the headlight and grille cavities. There is no evidence of any other contributing light source, and the shadows here are very distinct, indicating to me that perhaps their light source was just a bit too hot.

Have to agree with Brett and Joe here Garry, it is a very regular and welcome ( most times ) accurance.

A few here from one meeting, have many more that I have no time to look for

Now, consider the placement of your forward light source in relation to these hot areas and shadows: was it likely that your light caused those shadows? If so, then I suspect you have your answer.

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:20 am**

I'll chip in here too (hi guys

)

I get it maybe 3-4 times an event...

And yes, it's usually welcome :

[img]

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:51 pm**

Some times, not so welcome :shock:

I think a fairly firm statement that ,yes, it is quite a common occurance that two shutters can be open at exactly the same instance.

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:33 pm**

Jeebus!!!

Nice shot Fred :up:

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:33 pm**

agreed that it can happen fairly often. I have experienced this a few times while shooting Volleyball photos. I choose not to use a flash, as i feel it distracts the players, but some of my exposures have been thrown off by another spectators flash from the sidelines...

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:44 am**

That photo is 'brilliant' literally Fred!

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:41 am**

Can we go back to basics for a moment please?

Let's also see some images where you say there is no "friendly fire" contributing to the images, so that we have a baseline point from which to start.

I'll withhold my further comments for now.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:00 pm**

Some images from Sandown last year. Images show both no 'friendly fire' and 'friendly fire'.

The images are taken in bursts, 1/8 of a second apart. Approximately 20 other photographers shooting at the same people.

And another sequence from 5 minutes later. Again, all settings are the same per image. About 20+ photographers in a semi circle around the front of the 888 Falcon.

Images are straight out of camera, no PPIng as such.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:25 pm**

bwhinnen wrote:That photo is 'brilliant' literally Fred!

Yes, you need a welding helmet and a shade 10 lens to view that pic Brett. :shock:

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:00 pm**

Back to basics... here you go Gary

Img 1 in sequence

Img 2 in sequence

Posted: **Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:52 am**

It's not as uncommon as you think. I did a fashion shoot tonight and the idiots at the front used flashes. I must have taken over a dozen shots with their flashes in it. You can easily tell because the picture is ultra bright (I shot manual) and ultra blue (I had a custom WB).

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:51 pm**

Here are some examples of flashes in the frame. Sometimes they are welcome as it can really add to the image. Also note the two flashes on one of the pics. These were all from one night, I had more than these that night, about 9 or 10 of them.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:32 pm**

So I think we pose a good argument

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:37 am**

Kyle wrote:So I think we pose a good argument

DSLRUsers.com

Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards

Re: Trial in lighting - Poverty Wizards