Jaimie Photography wrote:
hey everybody

was wondering what you fashion outdoor photographers prefer. Ringflash on your cam or a batterypack with your standing studio flashlights (sorry dont know the correct english name for that)?

That's not an either/or proposition.

I shoot with a ringlight on the camera, off the camera as a wide-source monolight, multiple small strobes, et cetera.

What size/wattage of ringlight are you considering?

Caradoc wrote:

That's not an either/or proposition.

I shoot with a ringlight on the camera, off the camera as a wide-source monolight, multiple small strobes, et cetera.

What size/wattage of ringlight are you considering?

thanks for all your replies, would love to expand this discussion.

I own a 400 Watt Linkstar 2 x set with 2 umbrellas, 1 softox and 1 octabox...
only need a batterypack .. looking for which one to choose.

Mike Fiction wrote:
Ringflash gives a specific look, but it gets a little old after a while. Standard strobe w/ battery pack is much more versatile. IMO

I dunno. A ringflash only really gives that specific look on-camera. Off-camera with a 30" octabox, it does more.

An Alien Bees ABR800 with a battery pack and a 30" Moon Unit is a pretty versatile piece of hardware.

Jaimie Photography wrote:
I own a 400 Watt Linkstar 2 x set with 2 umbrellas, 1 softox and 1 octabox...
only need a batterypack .. looking for which one to choose.

I'm not familiar with the Linkstar lights. You'd probably be best served with a pure sine inverter and a good-sized battery to connect it to. The Alien Bees Vagabond looks nice, but I don't have one. I'm planning my own with a 600W pure sine inverter and an 18-22A sealed battery (deep-cycle marine.)

StephenEastwood wrote:
http://www.StephenEastwood.com/tutorials/skychart/skychart.htm

That's a useful chart Stephen, thanks!

Mike Fiction wrote:
My only issue with the ABR800 used off camera is it's a little weak in some situations to overpower the sun - I use WL X1600's and sometimes still wish I had more power.

Plus you still need the batterypack - I may be wrong, but I think the OP was comparing stobes w/ battery pack vs. a weaker battery powered ringflash.

Yes, the ABR800 is a little underpowered in some situations. I've metered it at f/16, ten feet, ISO 100.

At shutter speeds around 1/200, one can do *some* overpowering in noon sunlight, but I've generally used it in early morning/late afternoon.

For fill, it's nice and portable as long as you've got an extension cord.

Mike Fiction wrote:

That's a useful chart Stephen, thanks!

its only useful in the real world, here on MM people like to argue that the sun produces somehow less light where they are in broad daylight and can argue that for dozens of posts, how there 160ws AB set to 1/4 power at 10 feet away produces enough light to overpower the sun by 25 stops,  but in the real world the chart reflects what the sun does here on the planet earth. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Caradoc wrote:
For fill, it's nice and portable as long as you've got an extension cord.

Certainly, I'm not knocking the ABR, I do like it - just feel it's a little underpowered as you stated

The Zeus is a higher power (and more $) alternative.

Mike Fiction wrote:

Certainly, I'm not knocking the ABR, I do like it - just feel it's a little underpowered as you stated

The Zeus is a higher power (and more $) alternative.

And it takes a pack to go with the head, PLUS a battery pack... Not very portable in my view, but might work for some folks.

StephenEastwood wrote:
video/tv shows I am appearing on, its the least versatile and if not for TV I would not likely ever use it as I can always produce better looking pictures with another source of light.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Once again with utter comtempt and seathing jealousy I bow at your feet.

ward wrote:
Standard reflector head on strobe, with battery pack. Sometimes with a softbox.

StephenEastwood wrote:

its only useful in the real world, here on MM people like to argue that the sun produces somehow less light where they are in broad daylight and can argue that for dozens of posts, how there 160ws AB set to 1/4 power at 10 feet away produces enough light to overpower the sun by 25 stops,  but in the real world the chart reflects what the sun does here on the planet earth. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

StephenEastwood wrote:
400 watt will work outside but not overpower the sun greatly if more than 5 feet from a subject, you do not need to overpower the sun and of course do not need to shoot midday, but if you want to you can check this chart to figure out how much power you need to make the sky look the way you would want it and determine what your current light can accomplish.  http://www.StephenEastwood.com/tutorial … ychart.htm

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

I know it would be a lot more cumbersome, but could you just use two 400's placed right next to each other?  I suppose you might get a double shadow in some places.  Anyone tried this?

Shelby Chan Photography wrote:
As stated, ringflash mounted on your camera gives a particular look. You can slightly modify it by adding a softlight reflector or diffusion material, but the overall result is the same. However, you can take the same ringflash and mount it on a stand and shoot it into a silver or white umbrella, or with it's integral modifiers attached to give a different look. You would definitely get more vesatility out of a standard head with zoom reflector/softbox. Either way you will need a pack to power it.

This was shot with a Pro 7 Ring around 1000+ watts during very strong mid-day overhead sun.

Hey, Shelby.  Cool pic.  Nice to know how it was done.