View Full Version : Flashbulb burn times vs electronic
Harry Lime
03-16-2010, 05:20
A few nights ago I was watching 'Raging Bull'. The opening credits show DeNiro shadow boxing in an empty ring. The stadium is filled with thick fog and from among the seats random flashes from press cameras illuminate the scene.
Now obviously this scene was shot in slow motion, so the flashes appear to last a very long time, but I have used real flashbulbs on several occasions at work and they do burn much longer than an electronic flash.
Here is my question...
Is there a modern electronic flash (portable or studio) that can vary the burn time to emulate a traditional magnesium flash bulb?
Does anyone else think that the sheer size of the old bulbs, long burn times and the use of a large round reflector gives a very different quality of light, as opposed to a modern flash? The light from a modern flash is incredible hard, coming from a very concentrated point. Old flashbulbs are broader and softer. They can also put out an enormous amount of light considering their size.
thanks
Roger Hicks
03-16-2010, 06:14
As I understand it, it's a voltage/power question with electronic flash. Higher voltage = shorter flash time, more power = longer flash time. The old Strobe Equipment 5000 used to give about a 1/300 second flash @ 5000 W-s, as I recall. I don't think (from my relatively limited knowledge of electronic flash design that it would be possible to create a much longer 'burn time' and even then you'd need a big power pack.
You can however use diffused flash tubes and big round reflectors to emulate the quality (though not the duration) of bulbs, and my suspicion is that this is almost always more important than duration.
A rule of thumb is that a big bulb is about a 1000-joule flash head, so power matters too.
Cheers,
R.
mackigator
03-16-2010, 06:39
I think I recall some photographers shooting large underground caves by using flash bulbs for some technical reason - perhaps the ability to throw truly massive light out without much size or a bunch of wires or batteries. Is it true that a big bulb is more light than any similar sized flash?
Roger Hicks
03-16-2010, 06:41
I think I recall some photographers shooting large underground caves by using flash bulbs for some technical reason - perhaps the ability to throw truly massive light out without much size or a bunch of wires or batteries. Is it true that a big bulb is more light than any similar sized flash?
MUCH more. That's one reason for shooting caves with them. Another is that electronics and water don't mix well. Bulbs run off low voltage batteries.
Cheers,
R.
Beemermark
03-16-2010, 07:32
The absolute, undisputed, master of flash photograph using a 4x5 Crown Graphic and Rolleiflexes -
http://linkmuseum.pastperfect-online.com/
charjohncarter
03-16-2010, 07:39
Gosh yes, I like/liked them, even the AG-1s were nice. They really seemed to fill the room with light, (when the print was viewed). You got plenty of light and I know it may defy the laws of physics, but the background seems better light. Also there, to me, wasn't that harshness that strobes give.
charjohncarter
03-16-2010, 07:43
This what I'm talking about, this was taken by my father-in-law right after WWII.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3562806527_61d4904171.jpg
newspaperguy
03-16-2010, 08:19
Bulbs were nice... except when you needed a second shot quickly (OUCH!)
Lots of light though. I once shot a train wreck at night = shutter open, 4X5 Busch Pressman on top of my car and walked the line popping #22 bulbs.
Flash bulbs were about the only thing I until the early 70's. Electronic flash was under powered and heavy with a few exceptions. I worked for a government agency in 75 and 75 and used bulbs there almost exclusively. Even int the early 80's I used #3 and #22 bulbs to light large areas. Yes they have a very nice light when used out of a large reflector and do put out more power pound for pound than any other source. I even used bulbs to light ultra high speed motion picture work. When working for the DOE I shot 16mm high spedd up to 44,000 frames per second and used #3 bulbs to light the subject. When running the camera at lower speeds I used FF33 bulbs which had a peak of almost two seconds.
Roger mentioned that bulbs are fired with low voltage which is true with small bulbs but the larger ones #2, #3 etc. were better triggered with 110 volts using a relay box that sent low voltage to the cameras flash sync.
I used an old Ascor sun bank at one time. The flash tubes were about three feet long and with full power the duration was around 1/30-1/60 of a second. Even my 4800 Speedo black line units would run around 1/90 of a second out of the 4800 head and full power.
If you want to see the kind of light that bulbs put out take a look at the photos of O Winston Link and the trains he shot.
Does anyone else think that the sheer size of the old bulbs, long burn times and the use of a large round reflector gives a very different quality of light, as opposed to a modern flash? The light from a modern flash is incredible hard, coming from a very concentrated point. Old flashbulbs are broader and softer. They can also put out an enormous amount of light considering their size.
thanks
Yes, it is different. To copy it, you would want a bare bulb flash unit you could mount a similar reflector behind--there have been similar electronic flash designs, but I have not seen them in awhile.
Now how far you want to go would depend on how close you want to match the "look"--use a period camera and filter the lens to match the spectral response on old emulsions and maybe look for a grainier/low-res emulsion. You may want to filter the flash, although I don't know how important that would be or even if you could get the spectral output of a bulb. Giving the bulb of the electronic flash a small translucent baffle may be a nice touch. Except for allowing for a little motion, I don't think the shorter flash duration would be a big issue.
BTW, the softness of a light is dependent on the size of the reflector, whether the bulb/flash is baffled, and the distance the flash is to the object--the greater the distance, the more contrast (baring environmental considerations).
JPresley
03-16-2010, 09:14
Here's a polaroid I took with a Crown Graphic using a handle-mount flash with one of the little Lumiquest softboxes (6 inch or so) to simulate a flashbulb. I'm a biologist and not an artist, but this should give some idea.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29384663@N07/4285727253/in/set-72157623107123693/
charjohncarter
03-16-2010, 09:30
Here's a polaroid I took with a Crown Graphic using a handle-mount flash with one of the little Lumiquest softboxes (6 inch or so) to simulate a flashbulb. I'm a biologist and not an artist, but this should give some idea.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29384663@N07/4285727253/in/set-72157623107123693/
That is pretty neat.
One trick that somebody on Another Network<tm> told me he did for some of his Weegee type photos was to use a slow shutter speed with the strobe flash, to get some subtle nuances of movement, typical of a longer-duration flash.
Roger Hicks
03-16-2010, 09:37
One trick that somebody on Another Network<tm> told me he did for some of his Weegee type photos was to use a slow shutter speed with the strobe flash, to get some subtle nuances of movement, typical of a longer-duration flash.
That and 1/10 second flash synch on a big FP shutter, or open flash. In other words, the movement on old flash pics may well be due to long shutter speeds too, rather than long-duration flash. As far as I recall, FP bulbs had only about a 100-200 ms peak, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
Cheers,
R.
Harry Lime
03-16-2010, 10:35
I think you guys are right about the effect the old bulbs have on motion. You can largely reproduce a lot of the look of the actual light with reflectors etc, but motion is a different story.
The burn times for flash bulbs can be as high as a few seconds and if you are syncing at 1/30th you will probably still get motion blur from a moving subject. You can probably still get some of this by shooting at 1/10 or around there, but I'm not sure it will look the same. A modern flash simply fires so fast, that you would have a difficult time compensating for that by lowering the shutter speed.
I'm often struck by how we often lose valuable features or tools, as the relentless march of technology progresses. Sometimes it seems like we take two steps forward and one back.
Maybe I'll just start collecting bulbs...
Harry Lime
03-16-2010, 10:38
Hasselblad used to make a bare bulb portable flash with a large reflector. It think it was called the D40 or something... I wonder what the burn time is on that unit.
sonofdanang
03-16-2010, 13:01
Harry,
I don't have it in front of me, but Nikon has a workaround on their strobes that basically maxes out the flash output time to beat the top sync speed. But I don't think you will get the long duration burn that you are looking for.
The other thing I'm thinking of would be a "tree" of say five or six strobes with say 1/25 second delays between each. A cascading strobe array, if you will. Pretty sure you could find an easily-breadboarded delay timer circuit for a nickle or two in one of Forrest Mimm's books. Methinks a simple 555 IC and a couple of other components would get you an adjustable one.
If I find the time today I'll have a look in my tickle trunk.
On the other hand, such a device may be available already.
Hasselblad used to make a bare bulb portable flash with a large reflector.
A couple years ago I was given what could be described as the remains of what was at one time a Sunpak 120 flash. It was in very poor shape with cracked and splintered plastic pieces and one incredibly nasty AA cell which had leaked all kinds of yuck all over the battery compartment.
Anyway, with lots of TLC, I got it working again. :)
It's very similar to what you describe. A bare strobe flash bulb, which looks very much like and is about the size of an old fashioned radio tube. It has a reflector about the size of my dad's old cat-terrorizing flashgun which used flashbulbs the size of regular light bulbs.
They tell me that this thing has to be registered as a weapon in so many states. :)
Anyway, I used this in some of my Weegee experiments, some of which appear here:
http://omababe.blogspot.com/2008/04/weegee-on-fremont-street.html
IIRC I shot these at 1/15, intentionally to capture some subtle motion blur, but I really don't see any. :)
I wonder what the burn time is on that unit.
My guess is that the flash duration is somewhere in the millisecond range or so. I'm not really sure, but that's my guess. IIRC, the other flash I have, a Vivitar 2600, is less than 1/1000 in duration even at the highest power and I would assume the Sunpak 120 would be somewhat longer.
Bill Pierce
03-16-2010, 16:12
In the early 50’s most of the newspaper photographers were using 4x5 Graphics and switching to strobes from 22, 11 (mogul base) and the smaller bayonet bulbs, the 5 and the SM. The 22, 11 and (I believe) 5’s had a 20 millisecond, “M” delay to peak brightness. The gas filled bulbs had a shorter 5ms delay to peak. The killer #3 had a longer delay and was used for the most part in situations where you could open the shutter on “B-bulb” and then fire the flash.
The problem with the bulbs was that they gave a lot of light at low speeds, but weren’t that efficient at the high shutter speeds news photographers wanted not only for sports, but for quick news shooting of any type.
The first strobe I saw that made inroads against the bulbs was the Dormitzer. Big wet cell battery pack and the condensers in a large, metal, shoulder-strapped case. Reflector, bulb synch circuit in a head that attached to the same long, tubular D cell case that powered the bulb unit. In many cases, this set of batteries was used to trigger the shutter with a solenoid. In that way, you could hold the Graphic with one hand, hold the flash “off camera” and trigger it and the shutter with the button on the D cell battery case.
I think it was around a 200WS unit. The bulb and reflector were far bigger than today’s accessory shoe flashes, but not as big as a 22 bulb in a 7 inch reflector, a standard Graphic set up.
Still, both flash and early strobe gave a relatively harsh, sharp-shadowed light at normal working distance. However, they were not the narrow beams of light of many of today’s camera mounted flashes. They were, in essence, a very broad flood light compared to today’s on-camera units which tend to be little spotlights with barely enough coverage to handle a wide angle lens. It was the environmental bounce back that opened the shadows a touch that made the light look softer. Yesteryear, floodlight; now, spotlight.
The electomagnetic shutter tripper, the solenoid, was initially used to create a 20 millisecond delay between the time you fired a flashbulb and the shutter went off, to let the shutter go off at the peak of the bulbs brightness. But the other thing it allowed was for you to fire the camera from a button on the flash case when you were hand holding the flash off the camera with your right hand and supporting the camera with your left hand in a strap and unable to reach the conventional shutter release. That’s how you did off-camera flash in news situations. So the solenoid had a use even after the need to provide a delay between firing the flashbulb and triggering the shutter. And then, as film got faster (Super Panchro Press, Sports Type), folks found they could point the flash at the ceiling, bounce the light, and get an even more natural looking artificial light.
charjohncarter
03-16-2010, 16:38
I'm often struck by how we often lose valuable features or tools, as the relentless march of technology progresses. Sometimes it seems like we take two steps forward and one back.
Maybe I'll just start collecting bulbs...
This I agree with. Now we have all this great stuff to deliver light, but there has been a 'cottage' industry built around trying to soften the harshness of strobes (soft boxes, umbrellas, Tupperware things on the flash). And I still don't think it looks that great. Just go to Strobist group at Flickr, and look around.
Different flash bulbs had different burn times and different ignition times. I have an old Leica handbook which had an insert showing the burn times and lead times for different bulbs then available. I must have a look to see if I can find it to update this post.
I have a 111a camera updated to 111f flash sync and like the 111f it was designed to use bulbs. If you are familiar with this camera you will see that around the shutter speed dial of a 111f there is a collar that rotates to set the time at which the flash fires. This is because some flashes needed a few milliseconds to begin putting out their maximum light output and so had to be fired sooner to ensure proper illumination of the image. The above mentioned table showed which setting on the collar (there were more than a dozen) should be used for which type of flash bulb.
I am not sure by my impression is that most flash bulbs burned for very considerably longer than electronic flash - electronic flash typically as fast as one ten thousands of a second. Which is why electronic flash has problems syncronizing at high speeds with a focal plane shutter - the illumination from an electronic flash only eixsts for a small part of the exposure. I was even under the impression that one used to be able to get slow burning flash bulbs specifically designed to be able to sync at speeds like one thousands of a second with a focal plane shutter by illuminating the scene evenly for the entire time it takes for the focal plane shutter to traverse the entire image frame. Someone might like to illuminate (HAHA) me!
Harry Lime
03-17-2010, 02:13
That's some very illuminating information, Bill.
So, it really sounds like there is no way to completely emulate the look you got with flashbulbs (especially it's effect on motion), unless you use... flashbulbs.
Using a very large reflector etc will help to get you closer, but you will always have the problem of the actual size of the source. In movie lighting it is known that the size of the bulb gives different looks. As an example a carbon arc light has a very tight and intense light source, like an arc welder, producing very hard light with extremely crisp shadows. Standard tungsten bulbs deliver downright 'soft' light in comparison. HMI fall somewhere in between, although bulbs for these lights are about the same size as tungsten.
I looked up the tech specs for the Hasselblad D40 (Sunpack) flash. Even that unit has a burn time of 300-800ms, which is a lot faster than the old bulbs.
Maybe I need to go back to some very old flash units from the 60's and 70's to find something with a longer burn time, around 100ms. Of course none of them will be as slow as a flashbulb, but it would be interesting to see what something like that looks like in conjunction with the slow 1/50th sync speed of a Leica M.
Harry Lime
03-17-2010, 02:14
Different flash bulbs had different burn times and different ignition times. I have an old Leica handbook which had an insert showing the burn times and lead times for different bulbs then available. I must have a look to see if I can find it to update this post.
That would be interesting to see. At least we would have an idea what the target is.
Harry Lime
03-17-2010, 02:30
This I agree with. Now we have all this great stuff to deliver light, but there has been a 'cottage' industry built around trying to soften the harshness of strobes (soft boxes, umbrellas, Tupperware things on the flash). And I still don't think it looks that great. Just go to Strobist group at Flickr, and look around.
What is also interesting is that an enormous amount of effort is invested in making light from a flash look 'more natural', but few people experiment with the inherent esthetics of light from a flash.
The old press photos are a good example. There is a certain look to them that has it's own beauty.
Also early flash work from the 40's and 50's from the like of C.S. Bull etc. Looking at his flash shots it doesn't appear that an enormous amount of effort went in to making them look like they were not taken with a flash. Just to make them look really good.
charjohncarter
03-17-2010, 07:08
Also early flash work from the 40's and 50's from the like of C.S. Bull etc. Looking at those shots it doesn't appear that an enormous amount of effort went in to making them look like they were not taken with a flash.
Thanks for laying C.S.Bull on me, to paraphrase Louis Armstrong when talking to King George VI (except he called him Rex). You are right those press photos from that period are great, and some of them probably were not done with a lot of caution or preparation, just shoot, flash and hope.
A few nights ago I was watching 'Raging Bull'. The opening credits show DeNiro shadow boxing in an empty ring. The stadium is filled with thick fog and from among the seats random flashes from press cameras illuminate the scene.
Now obviously this scene was shot in slow motion, so the flashes appear to last a very long time, but I have used real flashbulbs on several occasions at work and they do burn much longer than an electronic flash.
Here is my question...
Is there a modern electronic flash (portable or studio) that can vary the burn time to emulate a traditional magnesium flash bulb?
Does anyone else think that the sheer size of the old bulbs, long burn times and the use of a large round reflector gives a very different quality of light, as opposed to a modern flash? The light from a modern flash is incredible hard, coming from a very concentrated point. Old flashbulbs are broader and softer. They can also put out an enormous amount of light considering their size.
thanks
I once had a rig that would discharge a big Cap. via a triac through a copal shutter and fire as many 50B bulbs as could be wired in parallel. If you look at the cost of a case of those old bulbs (they were the size of a 200W light bulb) vs the cost of Pro-photo packs to deliver the same amount of light, you would be in flash bulba for a long time. Where this isn't practical for most stuff, think about lighting a switch engine in the field with no AC. One case of bulbs, some common lighting fixtures from the hardware store and a big battery and you're ready to go. Don't forget the Welder's Gloves.
Roger Hicks
07-16-2010, 02:47
Meggaflash in Ireland still makes flashbulbs: www.meggaflash.com.
Cheers,
R.
Different flash bulbs had different burn times and different ignition times. I have an old Leica handbook which had an insert showing the burn times and lead times for different bulbs then available. I must have a look to see if I can find it to update this post.
I am not sure by my impression is that most flash bulbs burned for very considerably longer than electronic flash - electronic flash typically as fast as one ten thousands of a second. Which is why electronic flash has problems synchronizing at high speeds with a focal plane shutter - the illumination from an electronic flash only exists for a small part of the exposure. I was even under the impression that one used to be able to get slow burning flash bulbs specifically designed to be able to sync at speeds like one thousands of a second with a focal plane shutter by illuminating the scene evenly for the entire time it takes for the focal plane shutter to traverse the entire image frame. Someone might like to illuminate (HAHA) me!
X sync obviously had no delay, and the shutter speeds had generally no effect on the flash exposure-- the X max sync speed was generally at the highest speed at which a focal plane shutter was entirely open-- the shutter has to open first and the strobe fired during that time.
I have seen FP bulbs somewhere, but rarely, I do recall the charts that showed the peak burn time relative to the normal bulbs.
Some of the packages of the larger bulbs with Edison bases said they were good to be fired on from 3 to 150 volts. Later Edison base bulbs were only low voltage, but you could, probably foolishly, put them in you average house lamp.
The M delays in sync were to wait for the peak light, and if you are waiting for a strobe, good luck.
The "rule of thumb" was that if you did fire a magnesium bulb while the shutter was on bulb, you assumed about 1/25th of a second exposure, much much longer than the slowest of strobes. Doc Edgerton of MIT of course made strobes that would have a duration of perhaps 1 millionth of a second.
I am tossing out stuff I can no longer find room for, and am reminded of my first strobe, its bulb assembly mounted in an Edison base, with the low voltage from the flash triggering a relay to trigger the strobe-- a ways to go to get it to work. I would have needed an assistant to carry it for me.
I have not seen the numbers on the old "foil" type bulbs, but they are generally rare enough for collectors.
After having a plastic bag generate enough static to set off 25 bulbs at once in my lap, melting the bag and causing me to get up rather quicker than I thought possible, I add the caution in shipping and storing bulbs minus their original packing.
I recall it seemed a lot longer than 1/25th of a second.
I also recall a semi-truck of the flash cubes that worked by detonation, burning on a local freeway about 30 years ago.
I think Gerald Ford was not amused by exploding bulbs as well.
I have heard there is a significant market for them in Hollywood, so dealers have bumped the price a bit.
Regards, John
In case the last post was not long enough--
Am somewhat amused at "western" movie scenes in which invariably all photographers used flash powder, indoors or out.
Have never used the stuff, for photography, nor the "flash sheets", which were triggered by a match from a hole in the back after you poked your finger through from the front.
Digital cameras still seem to need motor drives and loud shutters for the movies.
Read a lot of old photo books in my youth though, and my first good, (less than five pound), electronic flash was a Honeywell 65c, with a continuous struggle to keep the ni-cad C cells working. Still have a few 64b's lying about, low power, work on AC, mount easily to a tripod, and the head is large enough to give a nice even fill light. If suddenly attacked you also have a mace size weapon.
Am pretty sure it cost more than the Rollei I was shooting with.
The old Graflex strobes included a model with a switch on top of the car battery that ran it to modify the output, but have no idea how or what the switch controlled, intensity or duration.
Regards, John
oftheherd
07-16-2010, 08:10
Meggaflash in Ireland still makes flashbulbs: www.meggaflash.com.
Cheers,
R.
Thanks for the link Mr. Hicks. Exploring that site also led to some other sellers of flash. Nice of them to do that. I was interested in the gallery as well. http://www.meggaflash.com/Sustut%20River%20Bridge%20photographed%20using%20m eggaflash%20flashbulb2.htm is an amazing photo. I wonder how much that photo contributed to global warming? :D :D
Many years ago, I had to photograph the inside of a chaple set on fire by an arsonist. I had plenty of electronic flash to choose from, including Vivitar 285 and Sunpak 544. I elected to use a Tilt-a-mite and press 25 bulbs, at night, 18mm lens, painting with light. I took three photos. One for the case, one for myself, and one was no good because I managed to catch myself. All that on Kodachrome 25 for the resolution and color. Worked well and gave me the special light/coverage I knew flashbulbs would give.
Later Edison base bulbs were only low voltage, but you could, probably foolishly, put them in you average house lamp.
LOL, one of my brother's pranks was to do just this! They most definitely worked and were very startling!
Now, the other day I was halfway-watching this piece on either History Channel or PBS (forget which) but they were covering the photography of Jacob Riis, for whom the Rockaway park is named and who photographed the slums of the inner city at night. This, of course, was a staged re-enactment.
They were explaining that he was one of the first to employ flash photography. I kind of expected to see the "tray" flash shown in the old films, but what he used was more like a pistol, which he raised as if he was firing a shot skyward.
I've never seen one like this, but if these were common, it does explain why flash units are often called "flash guns".
LOL, one of my brother's pranks was to do just this! They most definitely worked and were very startling!
Now, the other day I was halfway-watching this piece on either History Channel or PBS (forget which) but they were covering the photography of Jacob Riis, for whom the Rockaway park is named and who photographed the slums of the inner city at night. This, of course, was a staged re-enactment.
They were explaining that he was one of the first to employ flash photography. I kind of expected to see the "tray" flash shown in the old films, but what he used was more like a pistol, which he raised as if he was firing a shot skyward.
I've never seen one like this, but if these were common, it does explain why flash units are often called "flash guns".
In the category of "Don't try this at home kids" we had a joker where I worked and we took all the bulbs out of his toilet (no windows) save one of those 150 V flash jobs, and he came in, flipped the switch and got about 200,000 candlepower in the face. All we heard was, "Oh my God, Oh my God" and the wall switch clicking-- he really pranked everyone to the point of almost getting fired, but generally he did not appreciate it in his direction, but thought this one was funny.
In my old Kodak books, e.g. How to Take Good Pictures, a great series, they showed the flash sheets and holder, which had a hole in the middle for you to poke your finger through and then insert a lit match.
I would not want to deliver a truck load of those to a shop. The Magic Cubes were dangerous enough. I know someone who sold, at a good price, a very old foil filled bulb to England and posted it, after I burned my lap with regular bulbs, I decided to be a bit more careful. I also tried to use a shield in front of the bulbs, though all the ones I saw had a plastic coating on the bulb.
I think the TV and Movie versions use a different mix as they always seem to have a lot of smoke, the stuff we used to mix up in the basement did not produce much smoke, but it burned very white and fast. I'll leave the formula out of the post. ;-) It was pretty simple, but the ingredients were not easily available.
Surprised most chemistry teachers had all their fingers.
Regards, John
I'm not familiar with the technology of flash bulbs, except that I recall the fact that the so-called "Magic" flash cubes used capacitors, internal to each of the four sections of the cube, which were pre-charged from the factory with enough voltage to fire the bulb (i.e. ignite the magnesium filament) when the circuit at the base of the cube was closed via the camera.
Did all flash bulbs use an internal firing capacitor, precharged from the factory? Or were there some types that required the photographer to supply the voltage necessary to actually ignite the magnesium filament? I'm assuming in some of the cases described above, the voltages used in multiple-flash rigs closed relay contacts that functioned to fire all the bulbs simultaneously; but was the actual firing voltage built into each bulb, stored in a capacitor like in the case with Magic Cubes, or did the larger bulbs require "house current" to externally ignite the magnesium filaments?
In the case of Magic Cubes, one could use a simple piece of hookup wire, or anything conductive (like a pair of needle nose pliers) to short a pair of contacts together at the base of the cube and fire off one section of the flash, if you desired to ignite the flash off-camera; you didn't actually need to supply voltage externally. The camera's flash connection functioned to merely close the circuit to the cube's contacts at the correct moment. Was this the case with most flash bulbs, too?
~Joe
You can however use diffused flash tubes and big round reflectors to emulate the quality (though not the duration) of bulbs, and my suspicion is that this is almost always more important than duration.
I recently bought one of those Armatar modified 283s (See this post for pictures (http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1373460&postcount=22)) to strap onto my Speed Graphic. This weekend I finally got around to using it. The resulting light I feel feels looks far more authentic to a flash bulb then I've ever gotten with a direct electric flash.
May never get a long burn electric unit, but these are close enough for me. In particular I love the way the long cast shadows look. For example, coming off the journalists' microphones.
http://img.kpraslowicz.com/share/al-franken-cindy-hickey.jpg
http://img.kpraslowicz.com/share/al-franken-head.jpg
http://img.kpraslowicz.com/share/al-franken-interview.jpg
I'm not familiar with the technology of flash bulbs,
Magicubes had mechanical ignitors ("explosive" primer) -- no wires, no capacitors. Flash Cubes had two wires for each quadrant and ignited the bulb via battery current, as do all other flash bulbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_(photography)
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Magicube
Magicubes had mechanical ignitors ("explosive" primer) -- no wires, no capacitors. Flash Cubes had two wires for each quadrant and ignited the bulb via battery current, as do all other flash bulbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_(photography)
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Magicube
It was always a problem making sure the flash fired in the old days, some people rubbed the base of the bulb to make sure the contact was clean, some people licked them.
The BC set up (battery capacitor) adapter from Kodak really solved most problems, and there were other brands of flash equipment marked BC that put enough juice to really fire the bulbs.
Weak batteries, corrosion, were always a potential bane of the flashbulb photographer.
The Magic cubes were somewhat hazardous as I saw an entire semi of them burn out on a local freeway.
If I were to put together a unit to fire the normal No. 5 bulbs, I would want to use a BC flash, or really make sure everything was clean in the contact department. I think we sometimes used a pencil eraser to polish the contacts, blowing out the excess rubber -- they probably made tools to keep them clean.
Regards, John
and we took all the bulbs out of his toilet (no windows) save one of those 150 V flash jobs, and he came in, flipped the switch and got about 200,000 candlepower in the face.
Jeesh! That hurts just to think of it! In an otherwise dark room that could do some damage. I know it's innocent, but still ...
It reminds me of a prank that some so-called friends of mine used to do years ago. There were these kids who used to hang around a gas station after school, and one of their pranks was when an attractive girl went into the ladies room, they would throw a lit firecracker through the crack under the door. Yeah, I know, not the best ice-breaker there is, I admit. :)
Anyway, they tried it once with some kind of a very potent firecracker and the poor girl ended up with some minor injuries. :(
Surprised most chemistry teachers had all their fingers.
The chem lab demo along these lines which I remember the most was when the instructor lit a strip of magnesium ribbon, which was actually bright as is, and then thrust it into a beaker of O2! OMG! What a flash!
I still have cases and cases of various sizes of Edison base flash bulbs, and will eventually use them up. I should live so long.
Some of the really big bulbs have flash durations of a full second, and the monster Mazda 75 burns for (I think) three seconds. I have some of those but frankly they scare me.
Spelunkers like flash bulbs because they carry thousands of times more power in little space than electronics, and they fire with 1.5V to 3V DC just fine. Three-cell (4.5V) were common when there was a chance that you would use other flashes through extension sockets.
http://www.digoliardi.net/flash_tronic_1.jpg
Oh, and I have a half-dozen "Flash Tronic" units that require no battery whatsoever. (above) It's hard to beat that for old school!
oftheherd
08-04-2010, 04:34
...
I also tried to use a shield in front of the bulbs, though all the ones I saw had a plastic coating on the bulb.
...
It used to be common practice to place a thick plastic over the flash reflector/bulb. They came in two versions, sometimes both, and you could turn them around. One was clear, the other blue, for color correction of non-blue bulbs with color film made for daylight.
Oh, and I have a half-dozen "Flash Tronic" units that require no battery whatsoever. (above) It's hard to beat that for old school!
Possibly stupid question here ... How does it work with no batteries?
Jeesh! That hurts just to think of it! In an otherwise dark room that could do some damage. I know it's innocent, but still ...
It reminds me of a prank that some so-called friends of mine used to do years ago. There were these kids who used to hang around a gas station after school, and one of their pranks was when an attractive girl went into the ladies room, they would throw a lit firecracker through the crack under the door. Yeah, I know, not the best ice-breaker there is, I admit. :)
Anyway, they tried it once with some kind of a very potent firecracker and the poor girl ended up with some minor injuries. :(
The chem lab demo along these lines which I remember the most was when the instructor lit a strip of magnesium ribbon, which was actually bright as is, and then thrust it into a beaker of O2! OMG! What a flash!
Actually, the light from the bulb represented no danger, otherwise anyone who had their photo taken would have been in danger. Bulb was in a fixture and the wall switch was at least three feet from the fixture.
The burning Magnesium, as I recall, we warned the students not to stare at it.
The standard way of producing Oxygen was to heat an oxygenating substance in a glass tube, and collect the gas. That was responsible for many accidents, there were a number of old time experiments published which were pretty dangerous, I had some of those substances removed from the store room.
In a graduate class a guy dumped some turpentine in to a strong acid, he was very lucky, I helped clean up and he only got a few burns.
Not that we would have exercised any special care in this case, but it works out that it was not dangerous. The light's fixture also diffused the light a bit as well.
The later bulbs had the same bases, though they were no longer rated for high voltages, so it falls in to the "don't try this at home kids" category now.
I did set the trash can on fire once, put it out with an extinguisher I had handy, and the other classes were demanding I repeat it.
Big bonus if you hurt yourself in any demo if done in front of kids. ;-)
I always think it rather odd the current laws permit the possession of fireworks, but not the setting them off-- every year lots of kids get hurt.
Regards, John
It used to be common practice to place a thick plastic over the flash reflector/bulb. They came in two versions, sometimes both, and you could turn them around. One was clear, the other blue, for color correction of non-blue bulbs with color film made for daylight.
I think Kodak made those, also there was some sort of color dip-- long way to go, but the blue bulbs cost more.
J
Possibly stupid question here ... How does it work with no batteries?
It's a good question. Inside the body of the flash is a magneto. Put a bulb in the head, turn the knob at the bottom once to wind it. It locks in place. Then you fire by pressing the silver button on the flash body.
There were different models. The most common had a delay of 20 milliseconds (.02 or 1/50th of a second), and there was an FP model.
They were made just post WWII, and all still work. If you find one, it will probably be missing the mechanical link to the camera shutter, but you can make one if you are fairly handy.
It's a good question. Inside the body of the flash is a magneto. Put a bulb in the head, turn the knob at the bottom once to wind it. It locks in place. Then you fire by pressing the silver button on the flash body.
There were different models. The most common had a delay of 20 milliseconds (.02 or 1/50th of a second), and there was an FP model.
They were made just post WWII, and all still work. If you find one, it will probably be missing the mechanical link to the camera shutter, but you can make one if you are fairly handy.
I used to fire flash cubes in class using a hand crank generator, with the kids wearing spectral glasses-- was fun, and demonstrated the conversion of energy and exothermic reactions-- which is why I had a plastic bag of bulbs on my lap when the static set them all off at once. That was fun for the students, fortunately, I had wool pants on and was able to get up rather quickly. ;-)
John
Flash bulb work has some nuances that might be surprising. When lighting a large area by replacing the conventional bulbs with Edison-base bulbs, the surge would sometimes blow fuses. This was obviated by placing an incandescent bulb in series, usually the first in the chain.
Regarding synch - some shutters had three synch settings, chosen with a dial that was color-coded red, yellow and black. X, M, FP.
A great deal of old information regarding flashbulb use has been lost or misplaced in history. If encouraged to do so, I would consider putting up a web site on flash bulbs.
However, have you priced bulbs lately? I am aware of only one reasonable source. The rest are insanely high-priced.
A month ago I was hailed by a fellow driving a Volkswagen bug (I drive one, too). He asked if I had certain parts. Of course I did. We chatted and I mentioned I do photography. He asked, "You ever heard of One-Shot Kelley?" (Our old newspaper photographer who used 4x5 press and bulbs right up to 1999.)
The short story is that he bought One-Shot's home and there were a two cases of flashbulbs, and a case of photofloods in the basement. I traded a distributor for the whole lot. I am running out of storage space for all this stuff!
Regarding synch - some shutters had three synch settings, chosen with a dial that was color-coded red, yellow and black. X, M, FP.
Acme synchro is one example. See this chart:
The syncronization is set as follows:
Time (ms) Dot Color Description
0 red X (electronic flash)
5 white F (gas filled flash bulbs)
20 blue M (wire-filled flash bulbs)
23 yellow S (large slow flash bulbs)
Graphlex had a shutter (as did others, perhaps) that had two different settings for "M": red M and black M. They were selected based on shutter speed IIRC.
ethics_gradient
08-08-2010, 18:49
Harry,
I don't have it in front of me, but Nikon has a workaround on their strobes that basically maxes out the flash output time to beat the top sync speed. But I don't think you will get the long duration burn that you are looking for.
Someone on this forum referred me to something similar, although with Canon. You can put their electronic flashes into an "FP" mode that will emulate the longer burn of an FP bulb. Unfortunately my 580EX is broken and I haven't gotten it fixed yet, and I still need to order a bipost-PC cord adapter to test it out. It's not really high-priority for me, because I do most of my shooting available-light with the Aero Ektar (f/2.5).
I've also got a 3-cell Heiland flashgun with two reflectors and a bunch of bulbs (including some blackout bulbs for infrared photography) that came with my Speed, but again, lack the cord I need to make it work.
Interesting flash-related conversation, part of chit-chat, this weekend.
A guy who is a FOAF was talking about his new "trick" for making himself immune to those red light cameras, of which we have a few on the Iowa side of the state line.
The idea is to place a slave flash in the rear window, pointed upwards and to the left, to "blind" the camera, rendering the image useless.
Any opinions here on if this would work?
Interesting flash-related conversation, part of chit-chat, this weekend.
A guy who is a FOAF was talking about his new "trick" for making himself immune to those red light cameras, of which we have a few on the Iowa side of the state line.
The idea is to place a slave flash in the rear window, pointed upwards and to the left, to "blind" the camera, rendering the image useless.
Any opinions here on if this would work?
I think some folks sold a product designed to do this, would think you would want it at the plate, but in spy vs spy fashion, some intersections shoot you coming and going. One poor guy lives near an intersection with one of these and is complaining the flashing keeps him from sleeping.
Where is "Cool Hand Luke" and his pipe cutter when we need him?
It is much like an over zealous traffic cop, it really leads to a lowering of respect in general for law enforcement when minor infractions are targeted. I live in such a city, and I know people who will not patronize businesses here because they will not generally come here. One town has 100 yards of freeway that pays most of their annual budget.
A slave attachment with a big Metz with the WA screen might do the trick, but then when the guy behind you claims you blinded him--
Regards, John
Flash bulb work has some nuances that might be surprising. When lighting a large area by replacing the conventional bulbs with Edison-base bulbs, the surge would sometimes blow fuses. This was obviated by placing an incandescent bulb in series, usually the first in the chain.
Regarding synch - some shutters had three synch settings, chosen with a dial that was color-coded red, yellow and black. X, M, FP.
A great deal of old information regarding flashbulb use has been lost or misplaced in history. If encouraged to do so, I would consider putting up a web site on flash bulbs.
However, have you priced bulbs lately? I am aware of only one reasonable source. The rest are insanely high-priced.
A month ago I was hailed by a fellow driving a Volkswagen bug (I drive one, too). He asked if I had certain parts. Of course I did. We chatted and I mentioned I do photography. He asked, "You ever heard of One-Shot Kelley?" (Our old newspaper photographer who used 4x5 press and bulbs right up to 1999.)
The short story is that he bought One-Shot's home and there were a two cases of flashbulbs, and a case of photofloods in the basement. I traded a distributor for the whole lot. I am running out of storage space for all this stuff!
Now if you have some MG brake parts, I might trade for some bulbs. ;-)
I hear they are creeping up in price as well.
Photofloods are not cheap as well.
There was a time when I replaced some bulbs with photofloods to give more ambient light for available light shooting, but they run so hot you run risks.
Some of the good old solutions almost burned the house down a few times.
Regards, John
I think some folks sold a product designed to do this, would think you would want it at the plate, but in spy vs spy fashion, some intersections shoot you coming and going. One poor guy lives near an intersection with one of these and is complaining the flashing keeps him from sleeping.
Where is "Cool Hand Luke" and his pipe cutter when we need him?
It is much like an over zealous traffic cop, it really leads to a lowering of respect in general for law enforcement when minor infractions are targeted. I live in such a city, and I know people who will not patronize businesses here because they will not generally come here. One town has 100 yards of freeway that pays most of their annual budget.
A slave attachment with a big Metz with the WA screen might do the trick, but then when the guy behind you claims you blinded him--
Regards, John
I never saw a slaved flash countermeasure and would worry about the unintended consequences of blinding the other vehicles going through the red light. :D
There were a number of products that obscured the license plate from being read. Some states have laws now that make it illegal to attempt any type of red-light countermeasure... but that law only applies if one is caught.
I would be interested in using a flash meter to see just how powerful those flashes are. They are very bright from what I've seen.
I never saw a slaved flash countermeasure and would worry about the unintended consequences of blinding the other vehicles going through the red light. :D
There were a number of products that obscured the license plate from being read. Some states have laws now that make it illegal to attempt any type of red-light countermeasure... but that law only applies if one is caught.
I would be interested in using a flash meter to see just how powerful those flashes are. They are very bright from what I've seen.
The commercial versions I saw just blinded the area around the plate, though I am guessing if the company wanted to they could pixel peep and find you, probably happy enough to go on to the next "customer".
They put a few in areas where the speed limit suddenly drops from 35 to 25, and sometimes goes back up to 35 50 yards later-- classic trap, plus it helps if trees block at least one of the signs. ;-)
If you are pulled over, you have at least an opportunity for officer discretion. It seems a very involved process with the Speed ATM's if you wish to have a second look at the data.
We had one here that was faulty, and it made the news as I recall.
I am told France and England seems to like them very much, I used to drive 160 km on the Autoroute in France and had to stay right to let the traffic pass me. The rental car with the 1L motor would not go faster, but the truth is 160 was fast enough for me.
I would like a detector, not on the dash, that would remind me to check my speed, seems that if they want people to slow down they could put up radar / laser sources to just get people's attention.
Regards, John
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.