petemplinphoto wrote:
I went with the ProMediaGear Boomerang v2 (for cameras with V-grip) to mount my Profoto B2. It's a decent bracket, but overall I've been disappointed with its (in)ability to put the B2 head with a 2' Octa or 1x3 strip softbox in a position that was far enough up (for the 2' Octa) or back (for either mod) to stay out of the way of the lens, and that's after buying the riser and the extra setback piece. They've since come out with some more accessories that perhaps do the trick, but after $400 into the bracket already, I'm done. It did work well for my wife to shoot with a B2 head (bare) a couple weeks ago.

That looks like a reasonable choice for something like the Profoto B2 which projects a round pattern of ilumination.   I'm not sure it's a good fit if the OP is using a speedlight that projects a rectangular pattern of light (like a typical Canon or Nikon speedlight).

Michael Fryd wrote:
That looks like a reasonable choice for something like the Profoto B2 which projects a round pattern of ilumination.   I'm not sure it's a good fit if the OP is using a speedlight that projects a rectangular pattern of light (like a typical Canon or Nikon speedlight).

OK, I get it already...you want the shape of the flash to be aligned with the shape of the sensor. We've heard you twice...message received. Sometimes I want to control the shape of my light and NOT light the whole scene. Actually, that's probably all the time for me. Therefore, I don't need some sort of parallelogram system. Heck, anyone using anything more than a basic TTL sync cord has probably already given up synchronized lens/flash zooming functions (PocketWizard Mini/Flex doesn't transmit that information, Profoto AirTTL doesn't even try to capture that information) so alignment is already out the window. Further, if you're shooting in a venue with white/bright ceiling beams that happen to be parallel to your sensor, you might not want a vertical light shape or you run the risk of a ceiling beam being effectively closer than your target subject and washing out a big portion of your shot.

No matter how you slice it, a B2 with a 1x3 doesn't project a round pattern of illumination.

petemplinphoto wrote:

OK, I get it already...you want the shape of the flash to be aligned with the shape of the sensor. We've heard you twice...message received. Sometimes I want to control the shape of my light and NOT light the whole scene. Actually, that's probably all the time for me. Therefore, I don't need some sort of parallelogram system. Heck, anyone using anything more than a basic TTL sync cord has probably already given up synchronized lens/flash zooming functions (PocketWizard Mini/Flex doesn't transmit that information, Profoto AirTTL doesn't even try to capture that information) so alignment is already out the window. Further, if you're shooting in a venue with white/bright ceiling beams that happen to be parallel to your sensor, you might not want a vertical light shape or you run the risk of a ceiling beam being effectively closer than your target subject and washing out a big portion of your shot.

No matter how you slice it, a B2 with a 1x3 doesn't project a round pattern of illumination.

Sorry, I was thinking in the context of the OP's question.  I got the impression he was looking for a simple TTL solution for moving his flash above his lens for event photography.  He wanted something that was quick.  I assumed he wasn't interested in bouncing off a ceiling, as that doesn't require a flash bracket.

It's quite possible I misinterpreted his request, and a more sophisticated system, like what you suggest,  is a better match for his needs.

However, if he is looking to shoot event photography with a speedlight, there are advantages to matching the speedlight's orientation to the sensor.

Michael Fryd wrote:
Sorry, I was thinking in the context of the OP's question.  I got the impression he was looking for a simple TTL solution for moving his flash above his lens for event photography.  He wanted something that was quick.  I assumed he wasn't interested in bouncing off a ceiling, as that doesn't require a flash bracket.

It's quite possible I misinterpreted his request, and a more sophisticated system, like what you suggest,  is a better match for his needs.

However, if he is looking to shoot event photography with a speedlight, there are advantages to matching the speedlight's orientation to the sensor.

Ugh. There are also advantages to matching the speedlight's orientation to the gravitational pull of the Earth when shooting events. You've beaten the drum, but there are other drummers out there.

petemplinphoto wrote:

Ugh. There are also advantages to matching the speedlight's orientation to the gravitational pull of the Earth when shooting events. You've beaten the drum, but there are other drummers out there.

What would those advantages be?

More than one of the brackets suggested maintain orientation between flash and sensor. This suggests that it is a common desire.

It is clear that maintaining orientation is not important to  your style of shooting.  That's OK.  However it can be advantages to some people. 

Not everyone is in the same situation that you are in.  The solution that is best for you may not be the solution best for someone else.

For instance, sometimes a speedlight on a bracket is the best solution.  Sometimes multiple studio lights strategically placed around the room is better.  A lot depends on the specifics of the situation.

Michael Fryd wrote:

What would those advantages be?

More than one of the brackets suggested maintain orientation between flash and sensor. This suggests that it is a common desire.

It is clear that maintaining orientation is not important to  your style of shooting.  That's OK.  However it can be advantages to some people. 

Not everyone is in the same situation that you are in.  The solution that is best for you may not be the solution best for someone else.

For instance, sometimes a speedlight on a bracket is the best solution.  Sometimes multiple studio lights strategically placed around the room is better.  A lot depends on the specifics of the situation.

Do these brackets also tilt the flash downward at at angle that corresponds to focus distance, like a rangefinder or elevation sites on a rifle?

Because if not, then the 'equal' alignment doesn't do anything.

But if so, then having a flash and sensor orientation that matches would allow the largest amount of flash power to reach areas exposed by the sensor. But if not, it's going to have to overshoot no matter how you slice it. Some may overshoot more than others, but none will lose as much light as simply selecting the wrong zoom setting on the flash.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Do these brackets also tilt the flash downward at at angle that corresponds to focus distance, like a rangefinder or elevation sites on a rifle?

Generally not.  If you want a down tilt, that would be something you would need to do by hand.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Because if not, then the 'equal' alignment doesn't do anything.

Perhaps a better characterization would be that it doesn't do everything.

Some people find it useful to have equipment that performs better, even if it isn't perfect.

Zack Zoll wrote:
But if so, then having a flash and sensor orientation that matches would allow the largest amount of flash power to reach areas exposed by the sensor. But if not, it's going to have to overshoot no matter how you slice it. Some may overshoot more than others, but none will lose as much light as simply selecting the wrong zoom setting on the flash.

You would think orientation doesn't make a big difference, but the numbers suggests that the wrong orientation means you waste an extra stop of light.


Let's look at the math.  With a Canon 600EX lens, we can choose to allow it to track the focal length, and we can select to allow a wider pattern to compensate for misalignment.  Both the 600EX and the sensor have a 2:3 aspect ratio.

To keep the math easy, let's look at the case where we are shooting a 4 foot by 6 foot area of a brick wall (24 square feet).

Assume we want the flash to illuminate an area about 1 foot bigger, to account for the addition few inches of offset from the flash to the lens.  That means we want to illuminate an area at least 5 by 7 feet.  Assume we are using the manufacturer's matched flash, which also has a 2:3 aspect ratio.

If the flash has the same orientation as the sensor, we need to illuminate an area 5 by 7.5 feet (37.5 square feet)   We end up wasting about 36% of the light due to overspray.

Now if the flash is oriented 90° to the sensor,  we need to illuminate 7 feet by 10.5 feet (73.5 square feet).  Now we are wasting 67% of the light.   

When the flash is orientated 90° from the sensor, we lose a stop of light (even after allowing for the light lost due to misalignment).  This means our flash batteries will last half as long.

For some this may be a significant difference, for others it's not a problem to carry twice as many flash batteries.

Zack Zoll wrote:
You really have a thing for formulas, don't you?

I wonder why you take photos at all, when you have formulas to provide the optimal images in every occasion. Surely it would be easier and more lucrative to design and market an app that tells us all what to do.

I could argue, but what's the point? You probably have three more formulas in waiting for whatever I say.

I only wonder why you are a photographer, and not a programmer. Why waste your time with a medium that has many variables, when you know so much about how only one is right?

No need to make it personal.

Photography has both artistic and technical aspects.

While artistic issues are frequently a matter of judgement, technical aspects are mostly a matter of science.

As photographers we frequently need to deal with technical issues.  If we stop down to get more depth of field, it's helpful to know how to adjust shutter speed and/or ISO in order to maintain the same exposure.

I think it's useful to understand that if you are using a speedlight, it can cost you an extra stop of light if the flash bracket doesn't keep it orientated with the sensor.    This doesn't mean that you must use this type of bracket, it's just another datapoint to help you make an informed decision.   

On the other hand, there are many situations where this sort of bracket doesn't make a difference.  Perhaps you are using a different type of light?  Perhaps you are shooting square images?

descending chain wrote:
Really Right Stuff wedding bracket because it is well-balanced and takes up almost no room in the bag.  When you flip it, it stays there, unlike most of the flip-type brackets I've tried.  You can also snap on additional flash mounts if you want.  The only potential disadvantage is that it requires a Really Right Stuff or Kirk L-plate.  That's a non-issue for me because I always use L-plates on my cameras.

+1

Zack Zoll wrote:
You really have a thing for formulas, don't you?

I wonder why you take photos at all, when you have formulas to provide the optimal images in every occasion. Surely it would be easier and more lucrative to design and market an app that tells us all what to do.

I could argue, but what's the point? You probably have three more formulas in waiting for whatever I say.

I only wonder why you are a photographer, and not a programmer. Why waste your time with a medium that has many variables, when you know so much about how only one is right?

Hey.  Formulas work.  Those of us that actually DO shoot all the time for clients can't always be "creative" or thinking up stuff on the spot.  We have to rely on what has worked in the past or how we shoot "our style" since that is the reason they hired us to begin with. 

There is a time and place to be creative.  On a clients dime is not it.  I shoot my portraits and headshots based on formulas (lighting and posing) I learned and/or tweaked them to my liking.  But I produce salable images and images people really like.  No surprises.   Which is the point of a professional photographer.  To please your client.

descending chain wrote:
Really Right Stuff wedding bracket because it is well-balanced and takes up almost no room in the bag.  When you flip it, it stays there, unlike most of the flip-type brackets I've tried.  You can also snap on additional flash mounts if you want.  The only potential disadvantage is that it requires a Really Right Stuff or Kirk L-plate.  That's a non-issue for me because I always use L-plates on my cameras.

hmmm...  I think I need one of these since I always leave the L-plates on my cameras since I use them with the attached leather hand grips.  Thanks for the link!

Aside, it looks like with an extra holder attached to its side, I could leave the small Buff transmitter on that and a speedlight/Quantum on the top.  Just need some sort of parallel flash shoe wiring gizmo to link them both up off the Nikon shoe.

Don't know if the RRS one will bug me being all metal in my left hand though without some sort of foam grip or cover like the Stroboframe has?

e9 photography wrote:

+1

+1
In addition, the RRS wedding bracket can unfold to get the flash very high if needed.  Made with the usual precision and durability of RRS, it feels darn good to use.   I also have Custom Bracket -- a very nice piece of equipment that I thought was just right for me - until I tried the RRS.

Hey.  Formulas work.

yes.. they.. do..

and no one knows more about formulas than  formula-knowers

Bourbon Street wrote:
Custom Brackets.



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 … ating.html

this model

That's what I'm saying. Much nicer than the Strobo Frame models

Michael Fryd wrote:

No need to make it personal.

Photography has both artistic and technical aspects.

While artistic issues are frequently a matter of judgement, technical aspects are mostly a matter of science.

As photographers we frequently need to deal with technical issues.  If we stop down to get more depth of field, it's helpful to know how to adjust shutter speed and/or ISO in order to maintain the same exposure.

I think it's useful to understand that if you are using a speedlight, it can cost you an extra stop of light if the flash bracket doesn't keep it orientated with the sensor.    This doesn't mean that you must use this type of bracket, it's just another datapoint to help you make an informed decision.   

On the other hand, there are many situations where this sort of bracket doesn't make a difference.  Perhaps you are using a different type of light?  Perhaps you are shooting square images?

It wasn't a personal attack disguised as a hypothetical question. It was a genuine, honest question.

I'm actually curious why you are a photographer, and not a programmer or a graphic designer for that matter. Those are related fields that have a much heavier emphasis on formula.

Mike Collins wrote:

Hey.  Formulas work.  Those of us that actually DO shoot all the time for clients can't always be "creative" or thinking up stuff on the spot.  We have to rely on what has worked in the past or how we shoot "our style" since that is the reason they hired us to begin with. 

There is a time and place to be creative.  On a clients dime is not it.  I shoot my portraits and headshots based on formulas (lighting and posing) I learned and/or tweaked them to my liking.  But I produce salable images and images people really like.  No surprises.   Which is the point of a professional photographer.  To please your client.

You're referring to shooting formulas, which I will call recipes from here on to avoid confusion. My statement was in relation to the sort of formulas that determine how something works or if, based on design specs rather than actually trying the item and seeing what happens.

I got nothing against recipes. In fact, if you check my portfolio you can see that I use the same recipe for pretty much every portrait I have shot recently - no need to explain it to me.

But I do question the validity of using a formula to determine how best to use the gear, rather than using the gear to determine how best to use the gear.

Zack Zoll wrote:
It wasn't a personal attack disguised as a hypothetical question. It was a genuine, honest question.

I'm actually curious why you are a photographer, and not a programmer or a graphic designer for that matter. Those are related fields that have a much heavier emphasis on formula.

Normally I'm not so into formulas.  However, it was suggested that orientation isn't important, and instead of relying on a feeling, I wanted to work out what the difference really was.

Once you know the difference, you can make an informed decision as to how important that difference is to you.

Zack Zoll wrote:
We're both really good at answering questions without answering questions, aren't we?

I've done all of those.

Many years ago I was a college professor teaching Computer Science.  After that I spent a number of years doing industrial education.  I used to work with Adobe systems teaching major computer manufacturers about Adobe's products (of course, back then, Adobe had less than a few dozen employees).

I spent a number of years as a programmer.

I spent many years as a partner is a design firm.

I have designed and programmed some very high traffic custom web sites.

However, I was a photographer first, and have always been a photographer.  I had my first darkroom (and my first paying job) in the early 1970's. Back then we needed formulas for adjusting the development time for film.  Luckily the Kodak Darkroom Dataguide had cardboard computers to help find the best developing time.  Nowadays, my old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide sits on a display shelf gathering dust with my Graylab 300 timer, some Paterson developing tanks, a safelight (Kodak OC filter) and a specialty tank for developing Minox film.

Michael Fryd wrote:

I've done all of those.

Many years ago I was a college professor teaching Computer Science.  After that I spent a number of years doing industrial education.  I used to work with Adobe systems teaching major computer manufacturers about Adobe's products (of course, back then, Adobe had less than a few dozen employees).

I spent a number of years as a programmer.

I spent many years as a partner is a design firm.

I have designed and programmed some very high traffic custom web sites.

However, I was a photographer first, and have always been a photographer.  I had my first darkroom (and my first paying job) in the early 1970's. Back then we needed formulas for adjusting the development time for film.  Luckily the Kodak Darkroom Dataguide had cardboard computers to help find the best developing time.  Nowadays, my old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide sits on a display shelf gathering dust with my Graylab 300 timer, some Paterson developing tanks, a safelight (Kodak OC filter) and a specialty tank for developing Minox film.

I will try and keep this in mind for any future discussions. Not as evidence to be presented, but as perspective.

For what it's worth, I came from the opposite route. I was a mixed-media illustrator first(mostly charcoal with ink washes), and switches over to photography because I liked the fact that there could be intentional and unintended meaning; with drawing or painting, unintended meaning is usually the result of a fuck-up, or ignorance. Unlike phototography, you can't generally change the meaning of a painting after you make it.

So feel free to take that as perspective or evidence.

Zack Zoll wrote:
You really have a thing for formulas, don't you?

I wonder why you take photos at all, when you have formulas to provide the optimal images in every occasion. Surely it would be easier and more lucrative to design and market an app that tells us all what to do.

I could argue, but what's the point? You probably have three more formulas in waiting for whatever I say.

I only wonder why you are a photographer, and not a programmer. Why waste your time with a medium that has many variables, when you know so much about how only one is right?

Is his information wrong?

If not, I can't see the need to be so critical of someone taking the time to provide the detail needed to understand the idea they're sharing.