How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

 

The comparison was made without, but also with diffusers (regarding YS-D2 and Z330). The problem is, that the images were taken in air and not in the water. Water will scatter the light and also the beam angles will be different...

I never have seen such a weird intensity pattern with YS-D2 or Z330, as shown in the Retra "study", when I have used them without diffusers. If the strobes would perform like shown in the "study" UW, they would not be usable without diffusers..

 

Wolfgang

 

The measurements in the comparison table are without diffusers and relate to the strobe power itself not an absolute GN
what I did is to take the inages and subtracts them with the retra without and the sea and sea with 100 diffuser 

results are identical 

on the basis that sea and sea is one stop stronger with the diffuser you are back at the same point so the retra are not more powerful or wide overall based on my analysis 

i think the whole idea or shooting strobes wilthout diffusers for wide angle is interesting but then the strobe gets bigger see oneuw or seacam that are the most powerful out there

since my ys-d2 I have not had a single occasion where I felt I needed more power it is unfortunate that the reliability was missing

[ChrisH]

2 hours ago, Adventurer said:

You are misleading yourself and others with that idea. I claim myself guilty of having silenced discussions in the past by posting a spectacular image to make my point. 

 

Be aware: Some very knowledgeable technically good photographers with good advice are miserable at composition, animal behavior anticipation or simply don’t dive enough all year round. We are talking about IQ (image quality) here and what’s technically possible, not art.

 

To get you dialed into the topic, let’s Alex have a say about his picture: 

 

 

This is very recent but there is more from him on YT were he talks about that particular picture and what technique he applied in other interesting YT videos.

 

During the early 2000s many of the pros where using this strobe color plus calibration technique. Alex got the best shot ever, when he was going ALL-IN on this white-balance plus strobe thing. He simply had the balls to do it with a 105mm focal length while everybody else was using it with classic wide angle and fisheye lenses. Please note Christian, that there is vibrant golden color on the Bohar Snapper which makes this shot what it is.

 

Well I don't think I am misleading anybody.

 

I know all the videos you mentioned.

 

And I know the chapter in his book about this shot (and similar ones), which contradicts basically almost everything you wrote here. Maybe you would like to quote from the book about this type of shots? About the distance of the shots? About the setup used? About the strobes pushed forward to reduce the distance that the light has to travel? About the use of warming gels on the strobe? About what distance is possible with these shots? About the problem color and distance? About the post processing?

Even his statements in the video above backs up all I have stated about distance and color (bringing strobes forward to reduce the distance and white balance in post) and nothing contradicts my statement.

 

To be honest, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I stated that from a distance of more than 1,5m the color (red) is gone. It is a basic rule of physics. The light travels from your strobe to the subject and back to the sensor. With 1,5m distance the light travels 3m through water. At that point red is almost gone.

 

You are now bringing up a picture that has almost no color (and no red) in it, kind of proving my statement right but claiming it to be a proof that it is wrong...

Of course there can be yellow color in such a shot. Nobody doubts that. There is even color in my wreck pictures without artificial lighting. That is basic color science underwater and self-evident... and not what this topic is about or what I have stated.

 

But if you know the secret sauce to shoot a subject more than 1,5m away (wide angle, so no pulling forward your strobes) and get rich and accurate color on something that actually has color (red), then please tell us 😉

 

And if you have a picture that shows that my claim above about distance, light traveling and color (not to mention contrast and clarity) is wrong, I will happily be silenced!

But as long as I don't get an actual evidence that everybody does it wrong because they just don't know better, I might continue to "mislead" people.

 

[Guest]

Water absorbs color. It does it equally from the sun as it does on strobes and no white balance can bring it back.

it is not true that red is gone after 1.5 meters and white balance works well at 12 meters and below with good weather and sunny bottoms

 

Whilst it is true that to get very accurate colors you need to be very close it is also known that if you are standing a few meters away and the light of your strobes hit the subject you can white balance much better

 

Big fish schools shots are not taken at 1 meter they are taken at 2+ meters with lenses that are not fisheye normally (WACP range)

There are reasons for that first the fish school will break if you get too close second if you are too close all you will see is fish.

 

The diver in this image is alex mustard himself he is at least 3 meters away from the school I am closer in comparison

 

 

Again the idea that all colors goes away so quickly is another myth that needs to be busted

 

The primary reason to get close is to avoid particles and increase resolution as water affects that too color is actually a lesser consideration

Edited May 30 by Interceptor121

[ChrisH]

22 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Water absorbs color. It does it equally from the sun as it does on strobes and no white balance can bring it back.

it is not true that red is gone after 1.5 meters and white balance works well at 12 meters and below with good weather and sunny bottoms

 

Whilst it is true that to get very accurate colors you need to be very close it is also known that if you are standing a few meters away and the light of your strobes hit the subject you can white balance much better

 

Big fish schools shots are not taken at 1 meter they are taken at 2+ meters with lenses that are not fisheye normally (WACP range)

There are reasons for that first the fish school will break if you get too close second if you are too close all you will see is fish.

 

The diver in this image is alex mustard himself he is at least 3 meters away from the school I am closer in comparison

 

 

Again the idea that all colors goes away so quickly is another myth that needs to be busted

 

The primary reason to get close is to avoid particles and increase resolution as water affects that too color is actually a lesser consideration

 

Why should it not be true that red is gone in 1,5 meter distance from camera/strobe to subject? Again, 3m light distance through water and red is (almost) gone. No chance to bring it back. You can tweak in post processing and get "ok" results, but it cannot be restored.

 

And again: in this picture I see no red. The fish have no red. Shots of fish work from more than 1,5m away, of course. Because there is no red on the fish that can be lost!

 

[Architeuthis]

28 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Water absorbs color. It does it equally from the sun as it does on strobes and no white balance can bring it back.

it is not true that red is gone after 1.5 meters and white balance works well at 12 meters and below with good weather and sunny bottoms

 

Whilst it is true that to get very accurate colors you need to be very close it is also known that if you are standing a few meters away and the light of your strobes hit the subject you can white balance much better

 

Big fish schools shots are not taken at 1 meter they are taken at 2+ meters with lenses that are not fisheye normally (WACP range)

There are reasons for that first the fish school will break if you get too close second if you are too close all you will see is fish.

 

The diver in this image is alex mustard himself he is at least 3 meters away from the school I am closer in comparison

 

 

Again the idea that all colors goes away so quickly is another myth that needs to be busted

 

The primary reason to get close is to avoid particles and increase resolution as water affects that too color is actually a lesser consideration

 

For me, this photo answers the question in the title of the tread "...How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)..."

 

=> I would says for this type of WA photo the flashes could not be powerful enough (I struggle a lot with lightening similar fish shools with strobes)...

 

And what is the problem with powerful strobes (except size and weight, but what kind of FF user cares about few 100 grams?)? And when max. power is too much, just turn them down a little, were is the problem (the opposite with small strobes is, unfortunately, not possible)...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

 

For me, this photo answers the question in the title of the tread "...How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)..."

 

=> I would says for this type of WA photo the flashes could not be powerful enough (I struggle a lot with lightening similar fish shools with strobes)...

 

And what is the problem with powerful strobes (except size and weight, but what kind of FF user cares about few 100 grams?)? And when max. power is too much, just turn them down a little, were is the problem (the opposite with small strobes is, unfortunately, not possible)...

I think that is correct for big scenes there is never enough power.

The seacam 160D is 1.3 Kg so you are talking about at least half kg Alex used subtronic that are also very heavy, oneUW are in the same category

The issue with weight is not the checkin. I check in two bags one with dive gear and domes and clothes and one with housing and ports. So standard 46 kg with camera and lens in carry one

However I am at the point where my rig is very heavy. With Zen 230 and sea and sea I cannot do much distance, with another 1 kg it becomes impossible. If you do boat diving and someone passes the rig this is not an issue if you do something a bit different it is a problem and I always do something different

Personally I find myself at east with WWL-1 140mm dome and 1780n wide angle port with plastic strobes I can still carry the rig it does everything except split shots for which a dedicated solution is required

Frankly you do not need a 230mm dome if you have the 180 nautican wide angle port and you are ok with 1635 the quality is outstanding

 

 

 

[RomiK]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:57 PM, ChrisH said:

 

 

In my experience, a circular flash tube gives the best quality of light. I have had Sea&Sea YS D1 and D2 some years ago and upgraded them to the first generation of Retra Pros. The difference was amazing and worth every penny (quality of light and built quality!). I never looked back!

 

Haha funny I share exactly the same experience! I too switched from YSD2 and YSD3 to Retra Pro X 2 years ago and boy oh boy what a difference! Much more pleasing light! 

 

FWIW I think that other factors make or break the photo than the power itself. For like large landscape like fish shoal etc definitely something that pierces the water without diffuser will provide clearer better results. Cheers 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, RomiK said:

Haha funny I share exactly the same experience! I too switched from YSD2 and YSD3 to Retra Pro X 2 years ago and boy oh boy what a difference! Much more pleasing light! 

 

FWIW I think that other factors make or break the photo than the power itself. For like large landscape like fish shoal etc definitely something that pierces the water without diffuser will provide clearer better results. Cheers 

 

It does not matter diffuser or not at distance every light is a point source and what matters is pure power

As per backscatter test the retra pro max are gn22 while the sea and sea are 32 insert a diffuser and you are still higher than 22 so the sea and sea have indeed more power which was the same before. 

 

Sometimes spending more money results in the illusion things are better however this is simply due to lack of rigorous test backscatter measures are accurate and bring things in check credit to them

 

Strobes like retra are interesting at near range where however power does not matter is more about not having hot spots

 

At distance bigger strobes like seacam and oneuw will have better results simply because of higher power so if your focus is big scenes wide angle that would be the way to go

Edited May 30 by Interceptor121

[DreiFish]

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

 

And what is the problem with powerful strobes (except size and weight, but what kind of FF user cares about few 100 grams?)? And when max. power is too much, just turn them down a little, were is the problem (the opposite with small strobes is, unfortunately, not possible)...

 

Main problem is weight. Both carrying weight and the weight of the strobes on long arms. My R5C rig (with 8-15 and a 140mm dome, about as light as it gets) with 2x Marelux Apollo 3 (1.3kg each) strobes is 11.5kg. This is too heavy.. I hate carrying it any distance, and even handing it up to the boat is a challenge. It's hard for any arm system to handle that much weight. Certainly on land, but even in water. When I was using the WACP-1 before and arms with clamps (rather than locline), it was closer to 15kg. That's.. cumbersome.

 

 

By comparison, handling my wife's rig (R6 Mark II) with 2 S220 strobes is lovely. It weighs 6.5kg. So.. reducing weight (meaningfully, we're talking almost 2kg here from the strobes) is a big plus. Not just for travel, but also for handling above water.

 

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

I think that is correct for big scenes there is never enough power.

The seacam 160D is 1.3 Kg so you are talking about at least half kg Alex used subtronic that are also very heavy, oneUW are in the same category

The issue with weight is not the checkin. I check in two bags one with dive gear and domes and clothes and one with housing and ports. So standard 46 kg with camera and lens in carry one

However I am at the point where my rig is very heavy. With Zen 230 and sea and sea I cannot do much distance, with another 1 kg it becomes impossible. If you do boat diving and someone passes the rig this is not an issue if you do something a bit different it is a problem and I always do something different

Personally I find myself at east with WWL-1 140mm dome and 1780n wide angle port with plastic strobes I can still carry the rig it does everything except split shots for which a dedicated solution is required

Frankly you do not need a 230mm dome if you have the 180 nautican wide angle port and you are ok with 1635 the quality is outstanding

 

 

 

 

Exactly this. 

[Guest]

Just now, DreiFish said:

 

Main problem is weight. Both carrying weight and the weight of the strobes on long arms. My R5C rig (with 8-15 and a 140mm dome, about as light as it gets) with 2x Marelux Apollo 3 (1.3kg each) strobes is 11.5kg. This is too heavy.. I hate carrying it any distance, and even handing it up to the boat is a challenge. It's hard for any arm system to handle that much weight. Certainly on land, but even in water. When I was using the WACP-1 before and arms with clamps (rather than locline), it was closer to 15kg. That's.. cumbersome.

 

 

By comparison, handling my wife's rig (R6 Mark II) with 2 S220 strobes is lovely. It weighs 6.5kg. So.. reducing weight (meaningfully, we're talking almost 2kg here from the strobes) is a big plus. Not just for travel, but also for handling above water.

 

 

Exactly this. 

reducing sensor size reduces the need for weight

You cannot really go under 750 grams per unit if you need power if you shoot macro even more smaller sensor and smaller strobes

[Nikolausz]

2 hours ago, ChrisH said:

 

Why should it not be true that red is gone in 1,5 meter distance from camera/strobe to subject? Again, 3m light distance through water and red is (almost) gone. No chance to bring it back. You can tweak in post processing and get "ok" results, but it cannot be restored.

 

And again: in this picture I see no red. The fish have no red. Shots of fish work from more than 1,5m away, of course. Because there is no red on the fish that can be lost!

 

The easiest to see this phenomenon by approaching schools of big eyes (Priacanthus sp.) while taking videos with lamps. The red colour of the fish will pop when we get closer than 1.5 m (independent of the strength or CRI of the lamps).

[ChrisH]

Yes, exactly 🙏

 

But then people will rush out and buy the biggest or „most powerful“ strobes based on what they have been told in a forum like this and then complain why they can‘t light up things that are just too far away. 
 

You just can’t. No strobe or light will. It will brighten, but not bring back all the colors. No problem with sharks or something without color anyway. Never seen a red shark. 
 

And then people bring up a picture that is all about exactly that problem and uses a different approach to get a shot (use a non/less colored subject, use a macrolens as telephoto lens so you can bring the strobes to the front and reduce the distance of the light travel and color absorb) and the explanation how it is done in the book exactly says that it can only be done up to max 2m (!!) distance and tell you that the 1,5m guideline is not true…

 

I am kind of buffled and speachless I have to say 🤷🏻‍♂️😅

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, ChrisH said:

Yes, exactly 🙏

 

But then people will rush out and buy the biggest or „most powerful“ strobes based on what they have been told in a forum like this and then complain why they can‘t light up things that are just too far away. 
 

You just can’t. No strobe or light will. It will brighten, but not bring back all the colors. No problem with sharks or something without color anyway. Never seen a red shark. 
 

And then people bring up a picture that is all about exactly that problem and uses a different approach to get a shot (use a non/less colored subject, use a macrolens as telephoto lens so you can bring the strobes to the front and reduce the distance of the light travel and color absorb) and the explanation how it is done in the book exactly says that it can only be done up to max 2m (!!) distance and tell you that the 1,5m guideline is not true…

 

I am kind of buffled and speachless I have to say 🤷🏻‍♂️😅

Sorry but you have no idea on this specific 

this is a school of jordan snappers the frame is at least 8 meters wide the shot is taken with wwl-1 horizontal field of view around 100 degrees

shooting distance around 3.5 meters

two sea and sea YS-D2 at full power with 100 degrees diffuser

If you think about limits like 1.5 meters you cant take pictures like this…but of course you can

power is the limit 

with my 18000 lumens video lights 2 meters is the limit strobes are much stronger 

Edited May 30 by Interceptor121

[ChrisH]

1 minute ago, Interceptor121 said:

Sorry but you have no idea on this specific 

this is a school of jordan snappers the frame is at least 8 meters wide the shot is taken with wwl-1 horizontal field of view around 100 degrees

shooting distance around 3.5 meters

two sea and sea YS-D2 at full power with 100 degrees diffuser

If you think about limits like 1.5 meters you cant take pictures like this…but of course you can

 

Sorry, but did you even read what I wrote?

Of course you can take those shots. Who would doubt that? I never did. 

 

Again you are „busting“ a „myth“ that is only a „myth“ if you don‘t unterstand what is meant with that „myth“. 
 

So, where are the red fish?

Where are the coral reefs in all their color shot from more than 1,5m away?

Please show me. 
But please stop showing pictures of colorless fish with no red in it to tell anybody that the 1,5m rule for getting shots with good color (red!!) is a „myth“. 
These shot just don‘t have anything to do with the 1,5m guideline. Nothing. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ChrisH said:

 

Sorry, but did you even read what I wrote?

Of course you can take those shots. Who would doubt that? I never did. 

 

Again you are „busting“ a „myth“ that is only a „myth“ if you don‘t unterstand what is meant with that „myth“. 
 

So, where are the red fish?

Where are the coral reefs in all their color shot from more than 1,5m away?

Please show me. 
But please stop showing pictures of colorless fish with no red in it to tell anybody that the 1,5m rule for getting shots with good color (red!!) is a „myth“. 
These shot just don‘t have anything to do with the 1,5m guideline. Nothing. 

There are no red fish and the coral reef is not interesting besides strobes don’t illuminate the reef ambient light does who thinks differently is a fool

 

i think you need to review physics II if you ever took it, I did

 

 

 

[ChrisH]

8 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

There are no red fish and the coral reef is not interesting besides strobes don’t illuminate the reef ambient light does who thinks differently is a fool

 

i think you need to review physics II if you ever took it, I did

 

 

 

Well I think I can just let that post stand for itself… no more words needed 🤷🏻‍♂️

[RomiK]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

It does not matter diffuser or not at distance every light is a point source and what matters is pure power

As per backscatter test the retra pro max are gn22 while the sea and sea are 32 insert a diffuser and you are still higher than 22 so the sea and sea have indeed more power which was the same before. 

 

Sometimes spending more money results in the illusion things are better however this is simply due to lack of rigorous test backscatter measures are accurate and bring things in check credit to them

 

Strobes like retra are interesting at near range where however power does not matter is more about not having hot spots

 

At distance bigger strobes like seacam and oneuw will have better results simply because of higher power so if your focus is big scenes wide angle that would be the way to go

Oh hello, I thought I’ve got a privilege of being on your ignore list 🤦‍♀️

 

I wasn’t talking about Retra Pro Max in my post. You may want to take a class of cognitive reading especially before insulting other people by telling them to take physics. 
 

I was talking about strobes without diffusers. From some reason the max version has diffused glass from what I see while the previous generation Pro X has a clear glass. 
 

now you take physics and read something about photons travel from the concentrated light source - a bulb - vs traveling through the diffuser. You may get surprised. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ChrisH said:

Well I think I can just let that post stand for itself… no more words needed 🤷🏻‍♂️

The subject is not the reef and schools hang out mid current mostly not on top of the reef where normally smaller fish take shelter 

i think your last comment shows a limited understanding of the subject 

The only group (not school) of fish you can shoot against the reef are anthias chromis amd smaller snappers in groups of hundreds which is not schooling fish

 

those you see in thousands strong in the image are 30-50 cm and dont hover anywhere near the reef mostly are a few meters to five meter clear

 

lots of people don’t actually have the pleasure of seeing anymore a large school of fish so they dont have a point of reference like those who have 

[Nikolausz]

14 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

The subject is not the reef and schools hang out mid current mostly not on top of the reef where normally smaller fish take shelter 

i think your last comment shows a limited understanding of the subject 

The only group (not school) of fish you can shoot against the reef are anthias chromis amd smaller snappers in groups of hundreds which is not schooling fish

 

those you see in thousands strong in the image are 30-50 cm and dont hover anywhere near the reef mostly are a few meters to five meter clear

 

lots of people don’t actually have the pleasure of seeing anymore a large school of fish so they dont have a point of reference like those who have 

So you define the subject according to your previous post that is nonsense in my opinion (no red fish) . You also try to define the term school of fish vs group of fish, which is odd.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Nikolausz said:

So you define the subject according to your previous post that is nonsense in my opinion (no red fish) . You also try to define the term school of fish vs group of fish, which is odd.

It is not odd is scientific you can look it up in the dictionary 

group of fish some specimen in the same place all for their own

schooling fish a congregation of fish that stays together for protection against predators they act as group

 

When i shoot a school of fish the subject if the fish the reef may or not be there it matters nothing to me

in fact for better separation it is quite good that the reef doesnt show in malpelo there are not many soft corals it matters nothing whats behind unless it adds to the image like in this case

color of the reef not important 

 

feels like it is not underwater skill missing but general photography 

i choose whats the subject there are no rules to what extent the rest mattera

but again this is photography abc

 

 

[ChrisH]

39 minutes ago, Nikolausz said:

So you define the subject according to your previous post that is nonsense in my opinion (no red fish) . You also try to define the term school of fish vs group of fish, which is odd.

Yes, of course he does. What else could he do?
 

He now just has decided that wide angle shots are all only about schooling fish and reef scenes are just „not important“. Because we all know nobody shoots reef, big fish, wrecks etc. 

 

I am afraid, you can‘t argue with that kind of people. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, ChrisH said:

Yes, of course he does. What else could he do?
 

He now just has decided that wide angle shots are all only about schooling fish and reef scenes are just „not important“. Because we all know nobody shoots reef, big fish, wrecks etc. 

 

I am afraid, you can‘t argue with that kind of people. 

I think you are off mark trying to cover your false 1.5 meter rule besides incorrect by any measure as red penetrates easily up to 6 meters

i never said anything of that sort I just said your 1.5 meter rule is pure rubbish dogma with no reason to exist and you should stop telling others colors cant be seen etc you have no basis for that

 

i am not aligned with the extreme views that anything xan be white balanced but your theory is really terribly wrong 

[ChrisH]

7 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I think you are off mark trying to cover your false 1.5 meter rule besides incorrect by any measure as red penetrates easily up to 6 meters

i never said anything of that sort I just said your 1.5 meter rule is pure rubbish dogma with no reason to exist and you should stop telling others colors cant be seen etc you have no basis for that

 

i am not aligned with the extreme views that anything xan be white balanced but your theory is really terribly wrong 

You really did not read anything that I wrote, did you? (No, I don’t need an answer to that please!)

 

But yeah you are of course absolutly right. 

Just let all the people know, so all the books about underwaterphotography can be rewritten and the workshops don‘t tell people false information to get good pictures!

It is quite a surprise you are the only one knowing about all that. You would think that turning the basic rules of underwaterphotography upside down would have had any impact on the community of underwater photographers…

 

I have made my claims, you made yours and everybody that reads it can judge for himself. 

 

Have a nice evening!

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, ChrisH said:

You really did not read anything that I wrote, did you? (No, I don’t need an answer to that please!)

 

But yeah you are of course absolutly right. 

Just let all the people know, so all the books about underwaterphotography can be rewritten and the workshops don‘t tell people false information to get good pictures!

It is quite a surprise you are the only one knowing about all that. You would think that turning the basic rules of underwaterphotography upside down would have had any impact on the community of underwater photographers…

 

I have made my claims, you made yours and everybody that reads it can judge for himself. 

 

Have a nice evening!

Your definition of 1.5 is totally arbitrary how about 1.67 or 1.8 meters then?

 

And I have done workshops there are not hard rules especiallly as it depends on the power of the strobe

 

Example GN 16 strobe at 2 meters will have lost two stops becoming 8 however a 32 Gn strobe at 2 meters will still be 16 which is totally fine

 

Maybe the workshop you attended are organised by people with tiny strobes?

 

I will redo the math for your on the basis that red does penetrate well over 1.5 meters

 

Aperture f/11 ISO 500 equivalent f/5 call it f/5.6 distance four meters inverse square law 4 stops loss f/5.6 - 4 ev = 22 introduce a safety margin 3 meters is totally fine for GN22 strobes at full power

WWL-1 horizontal field of view 106 degrees frame size 8 meters not a problem

 

 

 

Edited May 30 by Interceptor121

[hellhole]

HA HA HA

self remove.. not part of topic..

 

i think all the strobes are good... buy as big as you can afford... 

Edited May 31 by hellhole