Harry Lime
Practitioner
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
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
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
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.
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
Well-known
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
Veteran
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
Veteran
The absolute, undisputed, master of flash photograph using a 4x5 Crown Graphic and Rolleiflexes -
http://linkmuseum.pastperfect-online.com/
http://linkmuseum.pastperfect-online.com/
charjohncarter
Veteran
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
Veteran
This what I'm talking about, this was taken by my father-in-law right after WWII.
newspaperguy
Well-known
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.
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.
x-ray
Veteran
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.
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.
Finder
Veteran
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
randomly snapping
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/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29384663@N07/4285727253/in/set-72157623107123693/
charjohncarter
Veteran
That is pretty neat.
dmr
Registered Abuser
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
Veteran
Harry Lime
Practitioner
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...
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
Practitioner
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.
dmr
Registered Abuser
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.
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
Well-known
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.
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
Veteran
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.
peterm1
Veteran
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!
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!
Last edited: