Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Flashes
Flash lighting for old derelict cottage
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 367230" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Two would have as much power capability as the internal flash. Either way would be flat frontal flash. Frankly I see no advantage over the internal flash then. </p><p></p><p>Guide Number at ISO 100.</p><p>SB-R200, GN 33 feet, which means 2 feet range at f/16 macro. Two equal flashes (aimed on same subject) is 2x power, and 1.414x more GN, or GN 46, with 2.8 feet range at f/16 ISO 100. Double that range if aperture is opened two stops.</p><p>Internal flash, GN 39 to 42, feet. </p><p></p><p>Sorry, I'm not a fan of the R1C1 for any attempt at general use. IMO, any advantage is for macro, when the camera lens is so close it blocks other light. So, they put the little lights on the lens. Then, when so very close, at least the lights are at a little angle, less flat frontal. Talking a few inches, but 2 feet would be a different story.</p><p></p><p>But you are not talking macro, so there must be some better way to do it with a speedlight. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> The light in the picture you posted is off camera to our left. Maybe a SC-28 cable with speedlight at arms length. But then the shadows may need to be softened, either a reflector or a larger diffuser.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 367230, member: 12496"] Two would have as much power capability as the internal flash. Either way would be flat frontal flash. Frankly I see no advantage over the internal flash then. Guide Number at ISO 100. SB-R200, GN 33 feet, which means 2 feet range at f/16 macro. Two equal flashes (aimed on same subject) is 2x power, and 1.414x more GN, or GN 46, with 2.8 feet range at f/16 ISO 100. Double that range if aperture is opened two stops. Internal flash, GN 39 to 42, feet. Sorry, I'm not a fan of the R1C1 for any attempt at general use. IMO, any advantage is for macro, when the camera lens is so close it blocks other light. So, they put the little lights on the lens. Then, when so very close, at least the lights are at a little angle, less flat frontal. Talking a few inches, but 2 feet would be a different story. But you are not talking macro, so there must be some better way to do it with a speedlight. :) The light in the picture you posted is off camera to our left. Maybe a SC-28 cable with speedlight at arms length. But then the shadows may need to be softened, either a reflector or a larger diffuser. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Flashes
Flash lighting for old derelict cottage
Top