Strobes Light Quality

[bvanant]

I hear the term "quality of light" all the time with particular emphasis on "wide beam" and "good color temperature".

 

Does anyone have a real world example of similar subjects with "crappy" light and with "good" light.  I suspect a bit of this is very subjective, and a bit of "I spent a lot of money so the light must be good".  We just got off a Komodo trip where a friend had 2 of the new Backscatter Hybrids on a Z9, and I was shooting with 2 smaller strobes on an OM-1.  Looking at pics during a slide show it was not obvious which shots were from which setup; we shot a lot of the same stuff.  

A couple of illustrations of good vs not so good light would be helpful (to me at least)

Bill 

[Jerry Diver]

You may find some examples by scrolling through this thread, although it’s not as straightforward as a simple ‘sponge ad’ comparison. Photography is a subtle art, and several photographers here have switched from one strobe to another. They reported that achieving a good shot was easier with strobes that offered higher light quality, mainly due to a more even light spread and consistent color temperature.

[Dave_Hicks]

1 hour ago, Jerry Diver said:

You may find some examples by scrolling through this thread, although it’s not as straightforward as a simple ‘sponge ad’ comparison. Photography is a subtle art, and several photographers here have switched from one strobe to another. They reported that achieving a good shot was easier with strobes that offered higher light quality, mainly due to a more even light spread and consistent color temperature.

 

Placebo Effect. A strobe that works reliably, has sufficient battery life, power, and the sync speed you require is as good as any other. I think "quality of light" is feeling not a feature.

 

Many people are putting a filter on their strobes, at which point the light spread is near identical to every other strobe and the light temperature is defined by the filter not the strobe.

[Jerry Diver]

I see your point. Reliability, battery life, power, and sync speed are all very important. However, light quality, like even light spread and consistent color, can still make a real difference, especially for those who need those finer details to be just right.

 

Filters help a fair bit, but they can’t absolutely compensate for uneven or inconsistent base light. Many photographers who have switched strobes find that better light quality means spending less time on adjustments in Lightroom or during the shoot itself. All this talk of ‘quality of light’ may seem subjective, but it often reflects subtle yet meaningful differences that improve workflow and results.

[Dave_Hicks]

40 minutes ago, Jerry Diver said:

I see your point. Reliability, battery life, power, and sync speed are all very important. However, light quality, like even light spread and consistent color, can still make a real difference, especially for those who need those finer details to be just right.

 

Filters help a fair bit, but they can’t absolutely compensate for uneven or inconsistent base light. Many photographers who have switched strobes find that better light quality means spending less time on adjustments in Lightroom or during the shoot itself. All this talk of ‘quality of light’ may seem subjective, but it often reflects subtle yet meaningful differences that improve workflow and results.

Even light spread is only important if you are shooting flat white walls in a dark room. I challenge anyone to identify an even vs uneven light source in an actual underwater environment. The truth is that most strobes (a similar power levels) are pretty similar.

 

What makes a real difference is how the photographer uses their equipment and composes an interesting subject.

[fruehaufsteher2]

1 hour ago, Dave_Hicks said:

Even light spread is only important if you are shooting flat white walls in a dark room. I challenge anyone to identify an even vs uneven light source in an actual underwater environment. The truth is that most strobes (a similar power levels) are pretty similar.

 

What makes a real difference is how the photographer uses their equipment and composes an interesting subject.

I can’t support this opinion. I switched from a reliable flash with straight tube - I used it always with diffuser. 
Switching to the Retra is like using a softbox (as you do in normal photography). 

[Davide DB]

Guys, after countless tests, comparisons and heated discussions, you can't tell me it was all a bad dream 🤣

 

Edit: I will split these messages in a new discussion. 

 

[CaolIla]

I changed from 2 inon s2000 to 2 retro pro 2 years ago...   


Euhhhh it's change more or less all 

The pictures quality make a jump.   

I'm really happy with my retra... but today the price is much more higher as to years ago. For sure If one break I probably don't buy retra again... but buy something btter/stronger as the s2000.


or not sure....  I've now snoot for retra protection for retra etc etc..... but for the moment my 2 retra are working well and I hope it will be the case for the next years ( 2 , 3 4 or more ???    )

Next trip  end of the week, 3 weeks Philippines with a lot of pictures...  The flash will probably shoot 4k or more times 

 

[Andrej Oblak]

8 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

I challenge anyone to identify an even vs uneven light source in an actual underwater environment.

 

With Inon Z-330 I was often dealing with shadows in the middle of the frame, with strobes positioned in a classic 10-2 position for horizontal shots or 12-6 for vertical shots. Diffusers were on by default. With Retras (no diffusers), which have arguably better and more even spread of light, I never had to deal with this issue. Same strobe positions, as I've used with Inons, usually just work in the first shot, so I can focus more on creative strobe positioning and individual strobe powers, without worrying about technical issues (unwanted shadows). I did, however, still manage to get images without a shadow in the center even with Inons, it just took some more careful repositioning of individual strobes. So in my opinion, it is possible to see this unevenness, but usually when you're still underwater and taking photos. But a bit more difficult in the final image, where the photographer already selects the image with best lighting.

[Dave_Hicks]

25 minutes ago, Andrej Oblak said:

 

With Inon Z-330 I was often dealing with shadows in the middle of the frame, with strobes positioned in a classic 10-2 position for horizontal shots or 12-6 for vertical shots. Diffusers were on by default. With Retras (no diffusers), which have arguably better and more even spread of light, I never had to deal with this issue. Same strobe positions, as I've used with Inons, usually just work in the first shot, so I can focus more on creative strobe positioning and individual strobe powers, without worrying about technical issues (unwanted shadows). I did, however, still manage to get images without a shadow in the center even with Inons, it just took some more careful repositioning of individual strobes. So in my opinion, it is possible to see this unevenness, but usually when you're still underwater and taking photos. But a bit more difficult in the final image, where the photographer already selects the image with best lighting.

I never used diffusers on my Inon-330s and did not have that issue.

 

I also rarely shoot in "10-2" strobe positions as I find that tends to yield flat images with little shadow or texture on the subject.

 

[Andrej Oblak]

33 minutes ago, Dave_Hicks said:

I never used diffusers on my Inon-330s and did not have that issue.

 

I also rarely shoot in "10-2" strobe positions as I find that tends to yield flat images with little shadow or texture on the subject.

 

Great, happy for you!

[Architeuthis]

I cannot tell about the Retras, but I can compare Z330 against HF-1...

 

Already after one two week diving holiday, I can say that with HF-1 (with 4500K flat diffusers) the color of the sea needs little correction in most cases (WA with 180° fisheye and WACP-C with 130° and less; combination of both flash and natural light). With Z330, I had to adjust this color much more, not seldom using masks in LR.

Also the susceptibility to backscatter seems to be less with HF-1 (I guess the flat diffusers have a narrower beam angle compared to the Z330 with the built in dome diffusers, but cannot say exactly, it is just a subjective impression)...

 

I did not recognize a difference in evenness or softness of the light distribution. Not seldom I get a darker area in the middle (no matter wich flashes), but the reason is that I did not position the strobes correctly (usually I use "9-3", "10-2" up to "semi-rabbit ear (also something like 3-9, but on elongated arms", depending on motif (depending on how far I want to reach the flashlight and also how reflective the bottom is)) - in my case it happens when the strobes are too far out for the distance of the subject...

 

 

Wolfgang

Edited November 11, 2024 by Architeuthis

[ChipBPhoto]

6 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I cannot tell about the Retras, but I can compare Z330 against HF-1...

 

Already after one two week diving holiday, I can say that with HF-1 (with 4500K flat diffusers) the color of the sea needs little correction in most cases (WA with 180° fisheye and WACP-C with 130° and less; combination of both flash and natural light). With Z330, I had to adjust this color much more, not seldom using masks in LR.

Also the susceptibility to backscatter seems to be less with HF-1 (I guess the flat diffusers have a narrower beam angle compared to the Z330 with the built in dome diffusers, but cannot say exactly, it is just a subjective impression)...

 

I did not recognize a difference in evenness or softness of the light distribution. Not seldom I get a darker area in the middle (no matter wich flashes), but the reason is that I did not position the strobes correctly (usually I use "9-3", "10-2" up to "semi-rabbit ear (also something like 3-9, but on elongated arms", depending on motif (depending on how far I want to reach the flashlight and also how reflective the bottom is)) - in my case it happens when the strobes are too far out for the distance of the subject...

 

 

Wolfgang

Thanks for the feedback, Wolfgang.  Any regrets making the switch to the HF-1s?  
 

I’m still not thrilled about the 21700 batteries or the heavier weight, but they seem to be the “best buy” among the strobes on the market today.  The video light seems like it could add additional value for the occasional usage.  

 

[Architeuthis]

8 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Thanks for the feedback, Wolfgang.  Any regrets making the switch to the HF-1s?  
 

I’m still not thrilled about the 21700 batteries or the heavier weight, but they seem to be the “best buy” among the strobes on the market today.  The video light seems like it could add additional value for the occasional usage.  

 

 

The heavier weight, or better the negative buoyancy, was only a problem on the first dive: I had the floats mounted the same way as I had for the relatively neutral Z330, i.e. most floats on the inner arm, to have buoyancy close to the center of gravity. The result was a rig with strong torque, because of the backwards positioned HF-1s that pulled the rig down. Now I put the floats more on the outer arm and I do not recognize any more that they are heavier than the Z330s...

 

Regarding the Li+ batteries, It is much better to travel with 8 batteries, sufficient for two HF-1 and one MF-2, compared to the 16 NiMh batteries plus two 21700, previously for two Z330s plus HF-2. Li+ is certainly the future. I find the negative and anxious feelings of some people too innovation skeptical and also a little bit ambiguous. There are so many Li+ batteries on board of aeroplanes (and also diving vessels) already now, because of handys and computers. The minority of Li+ batteries is from divers, is it video lights or diving torches, where Li+ batteries are already the standard. Now come some additional Li+ batteries from UW flashes - so what?

Regarding airline restrictions, the 21700 need to be carried as carry-on luggage, not as check-in luggage, up to 20 are allowed. The restrictions start at 100 Wh capacity (2 allowed) and at > 160 Wh the real problems start, see e.g. here: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/6fea26dd84d24b26a7a1fd5788561d6e/passenger-lithium-battery.pdf

 

=> In summary, no regrets so far (Tomorrow, November 13rd, I will take off for the next dive trip  😋(Tansania, Mafia island))...

 

The HF-1s are a substantial upgrade compared to the Z330s, regarding color temperature and power. Light distribution is very good according to my experiences, but see Alex Mustards review on HF-1 (He writes the HF-1 belongs to the best UW flashes available and he likes them a lot, but the Retras provide more even and softer light distribution and hence, are even better)...

 

 

 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2024 by Architeuthis

[jkepic]

The "strobe light quality" is real and as someone wrote it is not primarily about the technical parameters of the flash except for the temperature, but it is about the physics of how the light is transmitted, bent and refracted into the water environment. If there is sufficient power, then of course the "quality" can be improved by a dome diffuser of the appropriate temperature and size. In my practical experience a pair of Ikelite DS 160 (circular tube) without diffuser has very similar light quality to a pair of Inon Z-330 II (two spot lamps) with warming filter and dome diffuser. Similarly, a pair of MF-2 with diffuser has a similar light quality to the Z-330 II pair without diffuser. The Ikelite DS160 with dome diffuser is the best of what I have had the opportunity to try. Of course the dome diffuser is not suitable for everything and if there is a lot of dirt/particles in the water, we limit what we illuminate as much as possible. I would assume that the best default light quality without a diffuser would generally be with circular tube strobes.

Well then there is ergonomics of underwater use and once the DS160 drops somewhere down the line. A pair of DS160 with a dome diffuser is really cumbersome and for freediving this is especially true. The control from the side of the strobe is also inconvenient. The specific accupack is another cause of trouble. So now I actually go in the water with either a pair of Z-330 II (for wide angle) or a pair of MF-2 (for macro). When the time comes and the Z-330 leaves me, the Retra will be a great upgrade (like the DS160, but in a practical modern way).

[bvanant]

I understand the physics and color temp bits, but I am still trying to SEE similar photos with different light quality. Of course if light quality is purely subjective (which I suspect) then your light quality might indeed be directly proportional to how much you spend.  If light quality is all about color temp and water clarity then again it is subjective since if you dive in clear water your photos look better.  I hear the term softness a lot as well and that I think could be measured (light intensity as a f(distance) but haven't seen how that correlates to the real UW world.

 

Bill

[jkepic]

1 hour ago, bvanant said:

I understand the physics and color temp bits, but I am still trying to SEE similar photos with different light quality. Of course if light quality is purely subjective (which I suspect) then your light quality might indeed be directly proportional to how much you spend.  If light quality is all about color temp and water clarity then again it is subjective since if you dive in clear water your photos look better.  I hear the term softness a lot as well and that I think could be measured (light intensity as a f(distance) but haven't seen how that correlates to the real UW world.

 

Bill

It's all about balance and it's not about the power of the flash. The aesthetics of photography is of course subjective, but there is general agreement on the basic principles. Artificial light should not disturb the balance more than necessary and ideally should not be noticeable at first glance. That's where the quality of light comes in. How noticeable are the transitions between the part that is lit and the part that is unlit. How pronounced the shadows are, which can be really distracting in "poor quality" light (for example, with spot lighting). We usually want a balance between natural and artificial lighting. There are certainly exceptions such as black water photography and macro photography in general. In a simplistic way, I would equate "strobe light quality" to how obvious artificial light is to the untrained observer. For a comparison, just watch some video on why softboxes are used in standard photography. Or try to search for the "difference between harsh and soft lighting" in photography or videography.

[Dave_Hicks]

16 minutes ago, jkepic said:

It's all about balance and it's not about the power of the flash. The aesthetics of photography is of course subjective, but there is general agreement on the basic principles. Artificial light should not disturb the balance more than necessary and ideally should not be noticeable at first glance. That's where the quality of light comes in. How noticeable are the transitions between the part that is lit and the part that is unlit. How pronounced the shadows are, which can be really distracting in "poor quality" light (for example, with spot lighting). We usually want a balance between natural and artificial lighting. There are certainly exceptions such as black water photography and macro photography in general. In a simplistic way, I would equate "strobe light quality" to how obvious artificial light is to the untrained observer. For a comparison, just watch some video on why softboxes are used in standard photography. Or try to search for the "difference between harsh and soft lighting" in photography or videography.

Wow, I really diverge from this definition. Shadows, light, and their balance are what I look for. They create texture, depth, and dimensionality. A flat softbox look is rarely what I aim for in underwater wildlife photography.

[Davide DB]

3 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

Wow, I really diverge from this definition. Shadows, light, and their balance are what I look for. They create texture, depth, and dimensionality. A flat softbox look is rarely what I aim for in underwater wildlife photography.

 

I'm 100% with you. On my video shots I'm looking for shadows, shadows, shadows!

[BrightSea]

On 11/10/2024 at 1:42 PM, bvanant said:

I hear the term "quality of light" all the time with particular emphasis on "wide beam" and "good color temperature".

 

Does anyone have a real world example of similar subjects with "crappy" light and with "good" light.  I suspect a bit of this is very subjective, and a bit of "I spent a lot of money so the light must be good".  We just got off a Komodo trip where a friend had 2 of the new Backscatter Hybrids on a Z9, and I was shooting with 2 smaller strobes on an OM-1.  Looking at pics during a slide show it was not obvious which shots were from which setup; we shot a lot of the same stuff.  

A couple of illustrations of good vs not so good light would be helpful (to me at least)

Bill 

Backscatter website has a very good review of strobe size category / light quality.  https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Best-Underwater-Strobe-Flash

[BrightSea]

On 12/30/2024 at 1:44 PM, jkepic said:

The "strobe light quality" is real and as someone wrote it is not primarily about the technical parameters of the flash except for the temperature, but it is about the physics of how the light is transmitted, bent and refracted into the water environment. If there is sufficient power, then of course the "quality" can be improved by a dome diffuser of the appropriate temperature and size. In my practical experience a pair of Ikelite DS 160 (circular tube) without diffuser has very similar light quality to a pair of Inon Z-330 II (two spot lamps) with warming filter and dome diffuser. Similarly, a pair of MF-2 with diffuser has a similar light quality to the Z-330 II pair without diffuser. The Ikelite DS160 with dome diffuser is the best of what I have had the opportunity to try. Of course the dome diffuser is not suitable for everything and if there is a lot of dirt/particles in the water, we limit what we illuminate as much as possible. I would assume that the best default light quality without a diffuser would generally be with circular tube strobes.

Well then there is ergonomics of underwater use and once the DS160 drops somewhere down the line. A pair of DS160 with a dome diffuser is really cumbersome and for freediving this is especially true. The control from the side of the strobe is also inconvenient. The specific accupack is another cause of trouble. So now I actually go in the water with either a pair of Z-330 II (for wide angle) or a pair of MF-2 (for macro). When the time comes and the Z-330 leaves me, the Retra will be a great upgrade (like the DS160, but in a practical modern way).

Exactly.

[jkepic]

On 12/31/2024 at 8:42 AM, Dave_Hicks said:

Wow, I really diverge from this definition. Shadows, light, and their balance are what I look for. They create texture, depth, and dimensionality. A flat softbox look is rarely what I aim for in underwater wildlife photography.

Don't get me wrong. The key word is balance "artificial light should not disturb balance". Do not disturb the scene in an undesirable way, for example by casting two harsh shadows that are obvious to the untrained eye. Alternatively, throwing a shadow in a direction unnatural to the senses (e.g. from bottom to top). Or, on the contrary, depriving the scene of natural shadows. All this is typically undesirable. Of course, everyone may like something different. Anyway, I personally try to make wildlife photography so that the interference of artificial light is not blatantly obvious (especially to the untrained eye of a non-photographer). Of course I don't always succeed. Everyone likes to change things up from time to time, but when we talk about "quality of artificial light" we usually don't mean maximum contrast of the shadows thrown, but rather the exact opposite. Of course artificial shadows are important too, but it's all about balance. At least that's my opinion.

[Chris Ross]

Reading all these replies, I can see how subjective this is.  I've seen what Dave Hicks does and can see why he's less concerned with even light with the dramatic lighting used to create shadows.  I can also see the point of view of those who shoot big reef scenes exploding with colour from soft corals, Alex Mustard comes to mind, talking of the benefits he sees from the even lighting coverage.  It using a different means to create drama in the image.

 

I see some people saying that once they went to premium strobe they stopped having problems with light "missing"in the centre of frame- I'm guessing that's because the Retras in that case have a wider beam with more light at the edge of the cone so are less demanding of positioning and as I recall testing showed that indeed the Retra has more light out in the edges of the light cone.  You could argue you could do the same with the INONs - but they obviously haven’t managed to work that out previously.  Some people are perhaps not so rigorous when positioning their strobes.  If the strobe helps them overcome this it seems like it's well worth it.

 

The Blue water colour is certainly a real advantage of warmer strobes - you can get it with coloured diffusers at a cost of loss of light.  I'm wondering also if upgrading strobes to higher power  or even just pushing that power to the edge to the light cone away from the centre hot spot just puts more strobe light on the scene?  I often find I need to tweak subject colour a little shooting my Z-240s as they are not putting out enough power or conversely I'm not close enough.  More power will certainly help a bit with this, if you don't need to warm up the subject you won't impact the water colour adversely with your adjustments.

[bvanant]

Well the backscatter reviews (notice that they rate backscatter strobes quite highly), talks about beam quality (High output, wide width, beam shape) but no so much about quality of that beam. In any case still waiting for photos demonstrating a noticeable difference.

 

Bill

[CaolIla]

I ordered 2 of the new retra.  Why?
1) the batterie

2) I want to try  diving with 3 or 4 retra together to have a very large cover of the subject. It not allways possible to have a good exposure. I hope with 4 it will be easier to achieve that.

I'm sad that the new retra come after my next trip...  it will not be possible to make test before a long time 😞