Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting
Thread started 09 Oct 2017 (Monday) 05:50
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Godox VS Profoto A1

 
this thread is locked
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
scorpio_e's Avatar
Joined Aug 2007
Pa
Oct 09, 2017 05:50 |  #1

A quote by Sal Ciincotta after testing the two flashes side by side with no modifiers: He feels the Godox light is garbage. Good to know that I should not use bare flash three feet from the subject and I should avoid shooting a bare walls *L* Valid test to a make a small point but I think he should have tested both flashes using the modifier.

"I will have to disagree with you both. :) I am not testing lighting modifiers... I am testing the source of the light. Garbage in garbage out. Quality in quality out. I shoot bare bulb all the time. I mean - ALL THE TIME. As do many other photographers, so that will show. We will have to agree to disagree. :)"

If you want to see the test and his read :

https://behindtheshutt​er.com ...v860ii-with-sal-cincotta/ (external link)


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Daggah
Member
Joined Jun 2014
Oct 09, 2017 05:59 |  #2

Sal has no credibility because he is a dishonest person.

Besides, the second Profoto has to buy out photographers to run "Our product vs cheap Chinese knockoffs that sell for a fifth of the price" articles, they've already lost.


Nikon D800/D750/FE and Olympus E-M5 shooter
flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
fotopaul
Senior Member
fotopaul's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jul 2015
Stockholm/Sweden
Post has been edited 2 months ago by fotopaul.
Oct 09, 2017 08:32 |  #3

Daggah wrote in post #18468876 (external link)
Sal has no credibility because he is a dishonest person.

Besides, the second Profoto has to buy out photographers to run "Our product vs cheap Chinese knockoffs that sell for a fifth of the price" articles, they've already lost.

Not sure that his difference in opinion warrant a claim to him being dishonest..

Though I agree that both his infomercial and his test is amusing at best.


Instagram (external link)
Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,541 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Bay Area, CA
Oct 09, 2017 08:46 |  #4

Don't have time to read the whole thing but you guys use bare speedlites at 105mm zoom setting, 4 feet from the wall? I am just a hobbyist so don't be mad if I don't know these things.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,423 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Oct 09, 2017 09:30 |  #5

I could see shooting that close at that kind of zoom, but bare bulb? We always put modifiers on the flashes, even if it ends up being the diffuser plate that comes with the flashes, don't we?

I don't know why one would use a flash bare bulb (ie. no type of modifier between the actual flash tube and the subject)... I assume he really means just the flash by itself with whatever diffuser panel already sits in front of the bulb. If that is the case, Godox just needs to slightly re-engineer that one piece.

You would shoot this close wit these settings if you were trying to black out the background for a portrait for example. Light is close to subject off-camera, and subject is 2-3x farther from the background to create light falloff...


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Daggah
Member
Joined Jun 2014
Oct 09, 2017 10:51 as a reply to fotopaul's post |  #6

Sal's dishonesty was demonstrated during the earlier Shutterfest contest controversy.


Nikon D800/D750/FE and Olympus E-M5 shooter
flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
fotopaul
Senior Member
fotopaul's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jul 2015
Stockholm/Sweden
Oct 09, 2017 11:23 |  #7

Daggah wrote in post #18469015 (external link)
Sal's dishonesty was demonstrated during the earlier Shutterfest contest controversy.

Not familiar with that event,care to fill me in ? Thanx!


Instagram (external link)
Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Scatterbrained's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Chula Vista, CA
Oct 09, 2017 12:21 |  #8

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18468971 (external link)
I could see shooting that close at that kind of zoom, but bare bulb? We always put modifiers on the flashes, even if it ends up being the diffuser plate that comes with the flashes, don't we?

I don't know why one would use a flash bare bulb (ie. no type of modifier between the actual flash tube and the subject)... I assume he really means just the flash by itself with whatever diffuser panel already sits in front of the bulb. If that is the case, Godox just needs to slightly re-engineer that one piece.

You would shoot this close wit these settings if you were trying to black out the background for a portrait for example. Light is close to subject off-camera, and subject is 2-3x farther from the background to create light falloff...

I never put a modifier on my speedlight. Then again, I rarely aim it right at the subject and use it for key, and when I do, I let the head zoom to the focal length of the lens. What really kills be about Sal's "real world" examples, is that he clearly has an assistant holding an A1 over his head, and then the images are fully retouched, some might even say a bit over retouched. They are also carefully balanced with ambient to take the harshness out of the shadows cast by the light. All of that to then compare them to a cheap speedlight that is fully zoomed in and then aimed at a wall? Yeah, I'd agree with others that this stinks of paid product endorsement. He's going out of his way to try and make the Godox light look bad.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Scatterbrained's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Chula Vista, CA
Oct 09, 2017 12:27 |  #9

fotopaul wrote in post #18469037 (external link)
Not familiar with that event,care to fill me in ? Thanx!

Sal puts on Shutterfest. Last year (or maybe it was earlier this year) he took home several first place prizes in his own contest, that he hosts, that is supposed to be for the people attending his workshop. Meanwhile, the judges work on an "honor" system. If they recognize the work they are supposed to recuse themselves, but of course it's up to them to do so. On top of that, he's using images of hired models from coordinated shoots (for categories like "weddings" that's a big no-no), images that have been email blasted out (or so I've been told) so they are pretty recognizable. Generally pretty unethical behavior for someone hosting a contest. There are some pretty huge discussions about it online.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
fotopaul
Senior Member
fotopaul's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jul 2015
Stockholm/Sweden
Oct 09, 2017 14:19 as a reply to Scatterbrained's post |  #10

Yeah that does indeed sound unethical at least.


Instagram (external link)
Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,423 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 8 edits done in total.
Oct 09, 2017 14:31 |  #11

No it isn't unethical. However it is a courtesy thing. Usually those that put on shows and competitions exclude themselves from being participants. This happens across the board, from marching band competitions at the high school level all the way to large corporate events and sponsors. There is almost always something in awards legalese that says "those that are involved in the event are not able to enter or win prizes". However it would sound like Shutterfest had no such terminology. If there is no terms stating this for the event, then there is nothing unethical or illegal about it. Again though, some might consider it in poor form. Others are most likely simply jealous, but it is hard to differentiate which is which.

The only thing that could cause an issue of dishonesty or unethical behavior would be where he states the judges didn't know his work from others. If that wasn't true, then his statement is a falsehood, and he certainly is being unethical. If the judges had no idea one photo from another and voted purely based on content, aesthetics and composition, and nothing was noted in the competition about whether he could compete, then I see no ethics breach here. It won't win him any friends though.

https://petapixel.com ...-contest-pitchforks-came/ (external link)

Also none of this excuses personal attacks and general bad attitudes on the web. Vote with your presence or support of the event, not with ugly venomous comments and threats, which seems to grow day after day on a number of issues. 2 wrongs won't make any of this right.

Reminds me of this that I have been told a number of times (probably because I am quick to comment on things): "A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back."

I know I am happy with Godox, and so are so many others, one little article isn't going to make me sell everyting and spend 3x as much on some other lighting gear. :)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
fotopaul
Senior Member
fotopaul's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jul 2015
Stockholm/Sweden
Oct 09, 2017 15:52 |  #12

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18469183 (external link)
I know I am happy with Godox, and so are so many others, one little article isn't going to make me sell everyting and spend 3x as much on some other lighting gear. :)

That is hardly Profoto's goal, they know the majority of Godox users isn't their target group.

What's amusing though is that Profoto users and ambassadors tout this as something entirely new and unique only thing it's not.


Instagram (external link)
Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
scorpio_e's Avatar
Joined Aug 2007
Pa
Oct 09, 2017 17:27 |  #13

fotopaul wrote in post #18469237 (external link)
That is hardly Profoto's goal, they know the majority of Godox users isn't their target group.

What's amusing though is that Profoto users and ambassadors tout this as something entirely new and unique only thing it's not.


Calling the Godox garbage light by a ambassador makes me think they are targeting Godox users. Who else would they be targeting?


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Oct 09, 2017 19:37 |  #14

Well at 1K for the Swedish magic light box I'll pass, although I'd have one in a heartbeat if I could get one for free :)

Must try to focus the light of my 685 on a white wall to see what gives. Wonder what distance you need to be to get the A1 to focus at of have they managed to keep the light scattered enough. Either way, bare bulb or modded I haven't noticed any issues like some crazy pattern on the subjects body.

On the note of Sal's credibility, his work is great - just that entering your own competition shows low morals in my book, blind tested or not, what did he expect people would think about him winning.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
scorpio_e's Avatar
Joined Aug 2007
Pa
Post has been edited 2 months ago by scorpio_e.
Oct 09, 2017 20:49 |  #15

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18469366 (external link)
Well at 1K for the Swedish magic light box I'll pass, although I'd have one in a heartbeat if I could get one for free :)

Must try to focus the light of my 685 on a white wall to see what gives. Wonder what distance you need to be to get the A1 to focus at of have they managed to keep the light scattered enough. Either way, bare bulb or modded I haven't noticed any issues like some crazy pattern on the subjects body.

On the note of Sal's credibility, his work is great - just that entering your own competition shows low morals in my book, blind tested or not, what did he expect people would think about him winning.

A stupid decision om his part. What was he thinking *LOL* Glad he was able to beat all of those he was trying to inspire ;)


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

25,965 views & 54 likes for this thread
Godox VS Profoto A1
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00104 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is GHPub
984 guests, 467 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017