Flashbulb burn times vs electronic

[Harry Lime]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[PKR]

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]

Meggaflash in Ireland still makes flashbulbs: www.meggaflash.com.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnTF]

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

 

[JohnTF]

ps

ps

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]

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 River Bridge photographed using meggaflash flashbulb2.htm is an amazing photo. I wonder how much that photo contributed to global warming? 😀 😀

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.

 

[dmr]

Trivia and etymology of "flash gun" ...

Trivia and etymology of "flash gun" ...

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".

 

[JohnTF]

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

 

[JoeV]

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

 

[Sjixxxy]

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) 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.

 

[Gumby]

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

 

[JohnTF]

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

 

[dmr]

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!

 

[Pico]

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.

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]

...

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.

 

[dmr]

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?

 

[JohnTF]

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