Looking for honest reviews of the Flashbus Tour

MDJAK wrote in post #12239513
I signed up for NYC but had to cancel. I sent them an email Sunday night and they refunded my money in less than five minutes. I was sorry to miss it. I've seen Joe 3 times at adorama and he is very funny and entertaining, very humble.

Mark - bummer! Don't know if you've seen Hobby before, but he was worth the admission price - in Boston, of course!

Boss302 wrote in post #12250324
Wow, what a scam. Proves again, that the serious money in photography is not in photography itself, but selling the ideas of photography. What a concept. This reminds me so much of Scott Kelby and the whole Photoshop training economy.

300 people at $100 a pop, that's $30,000. That is an outrageous amount of money to pay a couple of guys for 6 hours of work. Think about this: these guys are pulling down 2500 dollars an hour spouting off information that is already available for free. Yeah, I bet they don't mind giving away of few $50 CF cards. Let's see, 29 cities at say 250 people average, they're each gonna haul away $362,500 for a six week "tour".

seriously? You've got to be kidding me... You would have been a perfect candidate (I don't mean that in any derogatory sense, mind you) for this seminar and I guarantee you would have benefitted more than $100 worth:

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=12137774#po​st12137774

lol, oops


seriously though, look into taking classes or seminar on any topic and you will find that the prices for similar programs are usually much higher than this. Have you checked the per credit prices for a college anytime recently? $100 for a day-long program with useful information and entertaining speakers is an absolute bargain by most standards

elogical wrote in post #12256141
lol, oops

seriously though, look into taking classes or seminar on any topic and you will find that the prices for similar programs are usually much higher than this. Have you checked the per credit prices for a college anytime recently? $100 for a day-long program with useful information and entertaining speakers is an absolute bargain by most standards

exactly correct!

karobinson wrote in post #12256152
exactly correct!

I agree as well. I would have went if not for the 8 hour drive plus accommodations to be in a group that size. I would have payed $500 for group of 30 people and drove that far. Two small groups rotating back and forth between them. But that would only be $15000 for them Neil van Niekerk charges $1200 a day for personal lessons. If I win the lottery I'll book him for 3 days

Boss302 wrote in post #12250324
Wow, what a scam. Proves again, that the serious money in photography is not in photography itself, but selling the ideas of photography. What a concept. This reminds me so much of Scott Kelby and the whole Photoshop training economy.

300 people at $100 a pop, that's $30,000. That is an outrageous amount of money to pay a couple of guys for 6 hours of work. Think about this: these guys are pulling down 2500 dollars an hour spouting off information that is already available for free. Yeah, I bet they don't mind giving away of few $50 CF cards. Let's see, 29 cities at say 250 people average, they're each gonna haul away $362,500 for a six week "tour".

Remember that they had to hire a bus for almost 2 months and cover the cost of gas as it went up and up. Also, they had to rent the venues, so they had quite a few expenses. I just came back from the Chicago Flashbus event held last Sunday and had a great time. I'll write more and post a couple of photos tomorrow.

I just wanted to add another thought to this ~ more specifically in a TTL vs Manual perspective: it always seemed to me that eTTL advocates often times suggest that it is more versatile because it can adapt to changing conditions. But after seeing Joe work with it first hand, it seemed more obvious to me that it wasn't necessarily more versatile, or that it would do anything "more right" with changing conditions (quite the contrary, as it often times guessed "wrong" when things were changed up in the scene). It struck me that the real advantage to eTTL was the ability to adjust & tweak your OCF power settings without physically going to each flash. Also, those flash settings were relative - rather than absolute (+/- Flash EV, as opposed to specific power levels). I was also a little surprised to find that (at least the Nikon) the eTTL system does not allow 100% power from the flash (Joe mentioned a couple of times that the flash set to 100% via manual was actually putting out approximately 10% more than it could max out with TTL).

I came away with a more-realistic understanding (IMHO) that eTTL control is not really easy or "automatic" by any measure. Rather just a different set of tools to accomplish the same (or similar) results in the end.

Anyone else agree with this perception?

MinnGreenGT wrote in post #12261341
...

I came away with a more-realistic understanding (IMHO) that eTTL control is not really easy or "automatic" by any measure. Rather just a different set of tools to accomplish the same (or similar) results in the end.

Anyone else agree with this perception?

As a Canon ETTL fan and user, you've hit the nail on the head - I suspect that some of the ETTL goofs were thrown in to prove ETTL isn't perfect, easy or magic - and has it's own nuances and such, just like manual, that you need to learn and adapt your shooting too.

MinnGreenGT wrote in post #12261341
I just wanted to add another thought to this ~ more specifically in a TTL vs Manual perspective: it always seemed to me that eTTL advocates often times suggest that it is more versatile because it can adapt to changing conditions. But after seeing Joe work with it first hand, it seemed more obvious to me that it wasn't necessarily more versatile, or that it would do anything "more right" with changing conditions (quite the contrary, as it often times guessed "wrong" when things were changed up in the scene). It struck me that the real advantage to eTTL was the ability to adjust & tweak your OCF power settings without physically going to each flash. Also, those flash settings were relative - rather than absolute (+/- Flash EV, as opposed to specific power levels). I was also a little surprised to find that (at least the Nikon) the eTTL system does not allow 100% power from the flash (Joe mentioned a couple of times that the flash set to 100% via manual was actually putting out approximately 10% more than it could max out with TTL).

I came away with a more-realistic understanding (IMHO) that eTTL control is not really easy or "automatic" by any measure. Rather just a different set of tools to accomplish the same (or similar) results in the end.

Anyone else agree with this perception?

I absolutely got the same perception. It seemed every bit the same amount of work.

MinnGreenGT wrote in post #12261341
I just wanted to add another thought to this ~ more specifically in a TTL vs Manual perspective: it always seemed to me that eTTL advocates often times suggest that it is more versatile because it can adapt to changing conditions. But after seeing Joe work with it first hand, it seemed more obvious to me that it wasn't necessarily more versatile, or that it would do anything "more right" with changing conditions (quite the contrary, as it often times guessed "wrong" when things were changed up in the scene). It struck me that the real advantage to eTTL was the ability to adjust & tweak your OCF power settings without physically going to each flash. Also, those flash settings were relative - rather than absolute (+/- Flash EV, as opposed to specific power levels). I was also a little surprised to find that (at least the Nikon) the eTTL system does not allow 100% power from the flash (Joe mentioned a couple of times that the flash set to 100% via manual was actually putting out approximately 10% more than it could max out with TTL).

I came away with a more-realistic understanding (IMHO) that eTTL control is not really easy or "automatic" by any measure. Rather just a different set of tools to accomplish the same (or similar) results in the end.

Anyone else agree with this perception?

I am thinking that TTL vs manual power difference is due to some of the charged power in the capacitors being used for the pre-flash?

MinnGreenGT wrote in post #12261341
I just wanted to add another thought to this ~ more specifically in a TTL vs Manual perspective: it always seemed to me that eTTL advocates often times suggest that it is more versatile because it can adapt to changing conditions. But after seeing Joe work with it first hand, it seemed more obvious to me that it wasn't necessarily more versatile, or that it would do anything "more right" with changing conditions (quite the contrary, as it often times guessed "wrong" when things were changed up in the scene). It struck me that the real advantage to eTTL was the ability to adjust & tweak your OCF power settings without physically going to each flash. Also, those flash settings were relative - rather than absolute (+/- Flash EV, as opposed to specific power levels). I was also a little surprised to find that (at least the Nikon) the eTTL system does not allow 100% power from the flash (Joe mentioned a couple of times that the flash set to 100% via manual was actually putting out approximately 10% more than it could max out with TTL).

I came away with a more-realistic understanding (IMHO) that eTTL control is not really easy or "automatic" by any measure. Rather just a different set of tools to accomplish the same (or similar) results in the end.

Anyone else agree with this perception?

'

totally agree.. I thought it was great that they could adjust the flash output level with having to walk over to each flash. But it also seemed like an expensive way to do it. Having a flash on camera just to be a controller.

Joe did say at the dallas stop that while he doesn't get free flashes from Nikon, but yet he kind of does. He is allowed to get what ever he needs then needs to return it by year end in good condition. Basically like going to the liberary and checking out a book. So while he doesn't have the upfront costs, he's just responsible for breaking stuff.

opps meant to add that even Hobby doing all manual stuff was using his on camera Flash as a commander to change the power levels. And honestly as someone with just one 580exII and with the YN flashes so cheap I just could't see myself buying another 580 to just use as a commander or the st -2? even.
But it did make me actually closly read my 7D manual, I never realized that I can use my 580 off camera and adjust the power settings manually through the camera.
So just going and getting new ideas to try out was worth it to me

580exII on an extra long ETTL cable in a softbox
430exII (used for ~$200) wireless.

I can now control two lights from the menu on my 7D - thats awesome

It also appeared to me that both of their methods were empirical...that is, trial and error until you build up a body of experience. Then, be ready to adjust.
The question I had (at the Chicago show) when I left is how David got his starting point...and I surmised that is was just from experience. He kinda said that, didn't he?

Nothing wrong with either of those "formulas," but I'm still trying to determine if I want to start out manually and adjust or start out using TTL and adjust. Seems like both can and do end up at the same point frequently...that is, with a good result.

(It's like using manual exposure on the camera and tweaking as needed or using Aperture or Shutter Priority and tweaking as needed....right? I actually prefer the manual method with exposure.)

By the way...this is exactly what I liked about the tour...it has made me THINK and get ideas! Totally worth it.

I attended the FlashBus tour in Chicago last Sunday and thought it was well worth the money. I have been using a single off-camera flash for almost 2 years, so I know the basics but learned a lot on top of that. As most of you know, Hobby prefers manual flash setting, while McNally prefers ETTL and frequently uses the pop-up flash on camera for wireless control. (I do the same with my 60D, and the same is available for the 7D and T3i). So here, in no particular order, are a few of the insights I got from FlashBus:

Hobby stressed that manual and ETTL are like two different languages that can describe the same things and get you to the same point. He suggested each photographer focus on the one they like best and are most comfortable with. Hobby stressed that there are times when he uses Av and ETTL instead of manual, such as when the ambient light is changing rapidly such as near sunset. McNally basically agreed with this analysis but prefers ETTL.

I asked Hobby how many flashes he prefers to use, and he replied that 2 flashes are his “sweet spot”, which gives him 3 light sources if he is also using ambient. He prefers a second flash instead of a reflector as his fill.

Hobby likes to use 1/4 CTO to add slight warmth to portraits, but he only uses it on his key light and not on fill or accent lights.

Hobby frequently uses Lumiquest Softbox III as a key light and likes to feather it past the subject and away from the near cheek of the subject.

Hobby was asked how long he takes for a head and shoulders shot. He responded that he takes about 8 minutes of trial and error to get the lighting right, then spends 2 minutes shooting a few dozen photos. McNally also does a fair amount of trial and error before he gets the shot he wants.

McNally showed how he builds up a lighting scheme using up to four flashes (eg. fill, key, 2 rim lights from left and right behind the subject). He was tethered to the projection screens wirelessly, so the audience got to see each shot within about 2 seconds after he took it. I found this enormously instructive, and it gave me several new ideas for using the second 430EX II my wife will be getting me for my birthday.

I have a notebook full of other ideas that will help me with multi-flash photos. Overall, I found it enormously instructive to see how each works. Hobby gave a point-by-point explanation using powerpoint, while McNally taught by making portraits and showing the result of each try. They fit very well together, and the event was lively and fun, with lots of photo jokes. Here are two photos of McNally during his presentation, one showing him taking a shot using a Lumiquest LTP for his key light. Both were shot from the audience (4th row) using my 70-300 IS lens at about 200mm on my 60D. Flash was on camera, as there was no other possibility from the audience.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.