> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hugo_G=E4vert?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: EOS Studio with only Canon EX flashes?!?
>
> So with EOS 3, I'd need to use my 550EX just for triggering them.
You can as well use a 5 US$ flash cable and a weak 5 US$
flash and put that in the corner. Or you grab one of the
50 US$ IR trigger flashes. Those flashes emit nothing but
IR light. They don't add to the picture, but they trigger
all slave units.
> So, not to get an effect from the main flash it would
> have to be directed somewhere else than directly to
> the subject and set to either min power or
> at least -2 stops of compensation.
In theory, yes, but in real life there are better ways
to do this.
> [jumping a bit...]
> > A remote flash sitting in blackwrap flags or shielded with
> > black cardboard in order not to spill into the camera but
> > lighten just your subject will very often not fire.
>
> But you just said above, that these slaves are triggered
> by the main flash.
Or another one sitting in the corner on a long cable,
or ideally the IR trigger flash.
> And as I don't want my main flash to be from the camera,
That was one of the reasons why TTL in all its flavors
is not very suitable for studio applications.
> this same problem applies to your cheap system also.
See above: No.
> The wireless flash commands from 550EX use 1/32 power of
> the flash if I remember correctly (could also be 1/64).
That is *very* little output. Not enough if you want
accented lighting setup in more than a close-up stillife
situation.
> At my home (the place where I would take the photos) the
> flash commands will bounce very well from many surfaces.
That is the theory.....
> This will not be a problem with the wireless E-TTL system.
That is rather euphemistic....
> But now that you mentioned it, it could be a problem
> with the system you are proposing.
For several reason, no. My suggestion uses full power
IR triggering or cable based triggering. Cheaper, better,
more failsafe.
> > > > No. You need a reproducable, calculatable output.
> > > > In camera metering is nice for flat lighting from
> > > > the camera, but it doesn't do much good elsewhere.
> I hope you will use wireless E-TTL at your workshop too.
Wireless or cable bound TTL (E-A-O-TTL...) is no difference
in metering, just the protocol and triggering for the flash
is internally different.
> After all many people here have reported that they
> have gotten good results with it.
Show me their results and I tell you why they got away
with wireless......
> You say that it doesn't work even though you have not
> tried it.
As described above, the metering concept is the same,
just the hardware layer of the protocol is wireless
and not cable. And of course all TTL metering no matter
what flavor takes a reflective meter reading. With all
the problems involved with reflective versus ambient
metering that you have with continuous lights as well.
I don't need to kick down the pedal in a car without
tires to know it won't run.
> It's not really convincing (even though I agree
> with many things).
I take this as a pointer to be more explicit about
lighting basics. With that knowledge, you will be
assimilated within seconds. Resistance is futile....
--
Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
