ProFoto lighting suggestions welcome

[bellimages]

I purchased a Profoto Acute 2R 2400 pack with two D4 heads a couple of years ago for a commercial photo shoot. I used them a handful of times in my studio, but they haven't been used since.

The nature of my work is art photography. I would like to do a series of work with items from nature (flowers, etc). I find that the light produced by the strobes is too intense. Plus, I can't "see" what the lighting is going to looks like until I shoot off some tests. I'm a very visual person, and not into the technical side of things.

If I were to switch from my current ProFoto gear to two ProFoto ProTungsten Air lights, it would seem that the guesswork would be taken out of the equation. Since they are continuous light, I could see with my eyes what the camera will see when I take the shot. Agree??

[Ellis Vener]

Yes. As long as what you are photographing is static and you use your camera on a tripod and don't mind longish exposure times, and heat,   "hot lights" are a good way to work. I suggest you look at "hot light  "solutions for m companies other than Profoto however, unless you have a lot of money invested in reflectors and light modifiers like softboxes etc. Look at Lowel Lighting : http://www.lowel.com/  Dedo Lighting http://www.dedolight.com , Joker  http://www.k5600.com/ , and Arriflex http://www.arri.de/lighting/americas/

Lowell lights have the best  best price to value ratio  in the quartz halogen group unless you go with HMI lights like the Joker and Arriflex HMI lights - which make even the highest end Profoto, Broncolor, and Briese lights seem cheap .


Alternately look at a high end photo/cinema quality fluorescent or LED lighting from Kinoflo http://kinoflo.com/ , Balcar http://www.balcar.com , Rololight http://en.r09.corporation.rololight.com/iiix/splash/ , and Litepanels http://www.litepanels.com/

You might also try shooting with just the 250 watt quartz-halogen lights in your existing Profoto Acute kit.

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com

[UlfKrentz]

Not to forget, tungsten is "warm" light and might have to be filtered to fit in the ambient color temperature. You´ll loose a lot of intensity when filtered. I´m a strobe guy and like to second what John said, try to "foresee" what you are doing. If you cannot dial down your strobes you could use neutral density gels.

Cheers, Ulf

[bellimages]

Thank you John. I appreciate your kind words. Yours too Ellis.

As I said, I'm not a techie. To be more exact, I don't have the patience to fool around learning technology (Ironically, I was a real computer geek years ago). I hate any type of a learning curve. So with that in mind, I guess that I have my work cut out for me.

You bring up a good point about tungsten. It's very HOT light; and my studio is very small (12'x 12'). I would swelter after a short period of time.

In looking at LED lights, I see things like Litepanel's Sola 6 fixtures. They would be great, but they are NOT cheap. I'm acquainted with Kino light banks -- a friend uses them in studio video production. They would not work for me, since they are "panels" of light, thus they could not be controlled for detailed lighting.

Maybe my Acute 2400 pack with the D4 lights are a perfect solution, IF I knew how to control them. I really don't know a lot about light shaping tools. I could either spend some time with them, testing (by trial and error). Or go to a workshop (preferably one on one). Do you know who might offer ProFoto training?

[Ellis Vener]

""Too intense" is an odd description."
I believe that by "too intense" the means that even turned all the way down , for what he's doing, the Acute2 2400 w-s pack and head are producing too much light for his purposes -- not an  uncommon complaint for that system which you can only dial down to 75 watt-seconds ( isolate the two channels, set the channel you are using to quarter power, and turn the bracket dial down to -2.  You can get a further stop of reduction by using Channel B, and plugging in  a second head  and pointing it well away from your set.

@ a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second a 75 watt-seconds is a lot of light compared to a quartz-halogen light; the difference is about 20: 1 - i.e., at a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second a "barebulb" 75 watt-second flash is approximately the equivalent amount of light produced by a 1,500 watt quartz-halogen light source. Shutter speed doesn't really start to have an effect on the amount of light a flash produces until you start going above 1/250th second* (* the Acute 2 2400 watt-second system is different in this regard as it's real world full flash duration at full power into a single head is more like 1/100th of a second)

[John Nollendorfs]

Maybe my Acute 2400 pack with the D4 lights are a perfect solution, IF I knew how to control them. I really don't know a lot about light shaping tools. I could either spend some time with them, testing (by trial and error). Or go to a workshop (preferably one on one). Do you know who might offer ProFoto training?

Seems to me you have not learned to use lighting. Just switching to continuous lighting systems will not change your problems. I have not used ProFoto, but power controls should be quite simple. Just remember if you "half" the power, it's like opening up 1 f-stop and visa versa.

Too many people just throw light at their subject without really thinking about how they want it to look. Your best bet is figure out if you want a large soft light (like a north window) or a sharp shadow defining light (direct sunlight) for a main light. Then fill in with reflectors. Keeping lighting simple is really the key. It also quickly helps you to size up how you want the lighting to look.

I love to photograph flowers in the studio by just setting them on my soft box like a light table for a back light. Then coming in with a single direct main light overhead.

There are no shortcuts to experience. You just have to play with the lights. Yes, you can learn a lot of techniques by attending lighting workshops whose main purpose is to sell lighting modifiers. But of course, there is more than one way to skin a cat! ;-)

[bellimages]

Soooo .... "halfing" the power is the equivalent of 1 f-stop. With the power of the 2400 (in my small studio) ... it seems that I would need to dial it down to a tenth of it's power ... unless I'm willing to shoot at f22. And I don't want to do that, since it's not the sweet spot of the lens.

Any comments on this?

[DeeJay]

Check out Kinoflo.

[bellimages]

As I said earlier, a "Panel" of light does not allow for "shaping" of light. They are great for video production, but not table top still life photography.

[bellimages]

Very well said John. Thanks.

I've seen various lighting situations through the years. I worked in a commercial photo studio in the late 70s. Then I worked in television for 30 years. So I know the basics of lighting. But I have never used grids and snoots, etc., myself. Plus, it's difficult to see what all these tools do to the light, since strobes only flash for a millisecond. The only way is to apply a light shaping tool and take a pic ... then change it a bit, and take another pic. Then repeat .... who knows how many times. Frustrating, since it's not "live."

From my standpoint, I'd love to spend a couple of hours with someone (ideally from ProFoto) .... having them show me what the "tools" can do. THEN, I could take that knowledge and start to apply it to my situation, creating the lighting that I desire.

As is, I feel like someone has opened the hood of a car and said figure it out. Does that make any sense?

[Ellis Vener]

Have any of you people criticizing Jon Bell for not knowing how to use light actually taken a look at his website? Maybe if you did you wouldn't be jumping all over him about how he uses light. To my eye he seems to know how to use light , and he seems to be looking for

a) A flash system with a lower low end output setting.

and/or 

b) a WYSIWYG  lighting solution - not one that requires a lot of techno-wrangling to get there.   

[MarkM]

Hi Jan,

I also have a Profoto 2400 w/s pack, so I know how you feel and know exactly what you mean by 'too intense.' When you are working with the lights close, even with the power turned all the way down, you end up having to stop way down or add neutral density filters to get a proper exposure. I solved this by picking up the 1200 w/s pack as well. All the modifiers and heads still work so the price wasn't too bad (for Profoto). I also find myself using the little 600 acuteB when I just need one light. The power on that can be reduced enough to shoot at f/2.0 if I want.

I think looking into a smaller pack is a much better solution than hot lights. They're just more flexible (for me)—their color blends with daylight and I can have independent control of artificial and ambient exposure. Both of these are really important to me, but of course you may have different priorities. Also, I've never used them, but on paper the D1 monoblocs look pretty flexible when it comes to power.

[bellimages]

Mark .... Good to hear from someone who owns the same gear, and can relate to what I'm talking about (about the intensity of light provided by the 2400 generator).

If you were me, based on what I've been saying, would you try to sell the Acute 2R 2400 and purchase an acute 2R 1200 generator?

[MarkM]

Jan, I was going from an older style 2400 pack, which does not have the exposure range of the newer packs acutes. So the newer style 1200 pack brought less power and a great range, which was a big improvement for me. I think if you are starting with the acute 2R 2400, you only gain a stop on the low end with the 1200. Before I had the 600 B I would plug an extra light in to bleed off some power and just have it fire into the abyss. This brings a single light down to 18.5 watt-seconds with the 1200. It's not a pretty solution, but easier than adding ND gels.

I kept the 2400 because I occasionally want to have a lot of power, but it doesn't see much use.

[EricWHiss]

When I had the Acute 1200 and canon DSLR, I did sometimes feel like I could not dial down the power low enough for some kinds of applications like table top work.   Outside of moving the lights farther away, adding diffusion material, or setting them at an off axis angle (as John-S suggests), there's not much I could do.   I was able to see the lighting fairly well with the modeling lights set to proportional, and I sometimes turn on one light at a time to see the individual contribution.  Shooting tethered also helps me understand and view the lighting.    For table top work or macro work, I sometimes use my older Metz 60 CT-4 flashes as they can be brought in closer, can be adjusted for lower power than the profoto's, and have a faster flash duration.      The funny thing is that when I moved up to medium format, I found I needed 4 stops more light and all of the sudden my 1200w/s pack was not enough power.        I now have the D4 1200 w/s and 4800w/s  packs.  The 1200 can be set to 8 w/s which is low enough.   I don't think I would go to continuous lighting for flowers as they start to droop under the hot lights. 

[EgillBjarki]

I was in a simular position as you, I had Acute 2 2400R generator and two D4 heads (and still do). I only use them when I am doing some heavy commercial stuff when I need to do loads of work.

When I am experimenting and working on personal stuff, I like to be able to move fast, that is kind of hard with a huge generator

So now I have in my bag 3 roughly 150ws lights with plenty of battery life, my camera and all my lenses in a bag that fits in a carry on bag.

I have two Quantum Turbo 3 battery packs and two T5DR heads and one Canon 580ex II with pocket wizard to trigger.

The nature of my work is art photography. I would like to do a series of work with items from nature (flowers, etc). I find that the light produced by the strobes is too intense. Plus, I can't "see" what the lighting is going to looks like until I shoot off some tests. I'm a very visual person, and not into the technical side of things.

I did my series Flora on flowers with my kit to use as a example:

http://www.egillbjarki.com/flora.html

Hope this helps you in some way.

[stevesanacore]

I purchased a Profoto Acute 2R 2400 pack with two D4 heads a couple of years ago for a commercial photo shoot. I used them a handful of times in my studio, but they haven't been used since.

The nature of my work is art photography. I would like to do a series of work with items from nature (flowers, etc). I find that the light produced by the strobes is too intense. Plus, I can't "see" what the lighting is going to looks like until I shoot off some tests. I'm a very visual person, and not into the technical side of things.

If I were to switch from my current ProFoto gear to two ProFoto ProTungsten Air lights, it would seem that the guesswork would be taken out of the equation. Since they are continuous light, I could see with my eyes what the camera will see when I take the shot. Agree??

Many of the solutions posted here already address many options for you. But if I were you, I would just use your modeling lights and see how you like working with continuos light. I shoot with my Profoto modeling lights often. You have all the flexibility of reflectors, softboxes, grids and have very accurate built in dimmers. Then if you find you prefer continuous light over flash, you can go out and look into buying them. If you do, I would recommend Arri for quartz lights. For fluorescent and LED there are many brands coming out with new designs every other week. Continuous light sources are used by filmmakers, so your best bet for reviews and information would probably be on cine web sites.

Hope this helps.

[carbonatoms]

Hi Jan

I use profoto equipment but not acute (pro series 8,7, and B2's) however the principals are the same for all packs from any manufacturer. Half the power to reduce the output by one stop.
The way you can get the lowest output from your 2400 is to use the B socket which goes down to 75w/s. Channel A I believe is one stop more at 150w/s.

Another factor is distance to subject of the light. For this you have to remind yourself of the inverse square law of which there is much on the web but a more visual explanation can be found here
http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/lighting-articles/rules-for-perfect-lighting-understanding-the-inverse-square-law/
If your studio is small then the amount you can use light to subject distance is obviously going to be limited.

Profoto have quite a lot of videos showing what a lot of their light modifiers will do in various situations. You will need some of these modifiers to achieve anything meaningful with your lighting and that is where I would spend your money rather than an awful lot on another pack which will give you 1 stop lower through one channel (37.5w/s). What happens when you want lots of power again?

Rather than ND filters for the camera, look at ND gels for the lighting, this can be bought in rolls or in sheets. These gels are usually expressed as 0.3, 0.6 or 0.9 but other variants exist.
.3 is 1 stop, .6 is 2 stops, and .9 is 3 stops of ND. If you buy them in roll form you can cut them to size to suit the modifier. Try to keep them off the hot glass from the modelling light.

If you invest in light modifiers you can also always rent profoto gear which does go lower in power and use your modifiers.
If you are shooting digital go out and get a decent capture software like Capture One pro which will allow you to tether to a computer and also a decent calibrated monitor. Then you can see much more visually what your light is actually doing relatively. Shoot a frame, observe, adjust a light, shoot a frame observe. Blacking out and using modelling lights on ratio will help somewhat as well.

Hope this helps

Will
www.photo.uk.com