YN-565EX & 70-200mm F2/8L - Too hot to shoot!

YN-565EX & 70-200mm F2/8 L

So I was at a dance recital event in a NYC school with this combination on my T3i. The lighting was terrible on stage and the seating audience was in the dark.

I tried a ton of settings (M mode), but never touched flash settings/power. I had tried shooting without flash initially but wasn't happy with the results. I decided to go with the flash and I'd modify in PP reducing the whites like I've done before vs shooting in higher ISO and loosing quality that I have no way to get back or replace.

I used the lens the day before at a graduation with way better lighting and the shots came out amazing - no flash used. Couldn't do that here, it was all orange! Everything was orange! It was bad, and the stagehands said that they weren't receiving enough funding from the city and that was why all of the flood lights were not working. So the only lights were the multi-colored lights .. It was terrible!

I take shots pretty frequent (2-4 per minute) since each routine is about 3-5 minutes long and I try to capture all the best shots. About an hour after shooting, the flash was extremely hot and would not fire. So I unmounted it, made some modifications and shot without flash. Those shots came out just as bad, but better in terms of natural color and no red-eye. Nonetheless, the shoot went terrible and the pictures came out bad. I wasn't alone though, anyone that was in the back of the auditorium like me had the same results. Folks up in the front rows had less than satisfactory results, but less PP and better out of the camera shots.

So because this is the flash section, I want to ask if anyone could explain what might have happened with the flash. I've used this flash in the studio to do portraits, groups, etc and I've never had this problem and works just fine.

Something tells me that it had to do with the lens. The longer range and the eTTL ability of the flash cranked up the power, but I'm not sure?? I have read about this flash and some (heat) defects, but should I have gone manual which might have been better overall to prevent all of the "auto" eTTL magic?? Thoughts?

What ISO were you at? If it was low, you could have been popping full-power the entire time.

JS_280 wrote in post #14745086
What ISO were you at? If it was low, you could have been popping full-power the entire time.

Hi JS_280! I set it to a constant 1600

Thanks for your help

post a pic

You probably were popping off at full power and had the shutter in machine gun mode. Pick your shots, bump up the ISO. Stop being afraid of high ISO. It's fine as long as you know how to expose a shot correctly. Even overexpose it a half a stop, bring the exposure down in post and BAM! Very little noise.

Comparing shots with other people isn't really too helpful as MOST of them probably weren't too familar with working one in the first place.

Thanks and good point ultimachi and slowly I'm getting to that mindset and that comfort level with each event and venue I shoot.

But I'm really trying to solve the flash heat up issue. I just picked up this flash and have used a 430ex (rented) for (small)weddings and sweet 16 events. Never had the problem, but hoping not to with the 565ex since it would probably not require so many shots in such a short amount of time. I wanted to be sure by polling folks in this section that might have experience with this flash

@btmlinedan I'll try - I'm posting from work now

Well over 90% (most commentators quote either 94% or 97% - but whichever, it's extremely high) of the energy output of either an incandescent bulb or a strobe/speedlite/flash​gun is HEAT and not light. Basic physics. So, to achieve usable levels of light, each time we flash we are generating a lot of heat, albeit for a brief moment in time. This heat accumulates in the casing. It isn't peculiar to, or a fault in your YN565EX - there is a thermal cut-out which cuts power when the unit gets too hot to obviate permanent damage and Yongnuo do at least mention this in the instruction book. I vaguely seem to remember seeing mention also in Metz, Canon and Nikon manuals about thermal cut-outs but can't check at the moment. So, it's not the unit/design/make which is at fault hence it must be the way it's being used.

If you double the distance from flash to subject, you need four times as much power (ie +2 f/stops) to get the same level of illumination. That's four times as much heat as well. In a large auditorium there are no ceilings or walls giving you a helping hand so you automatically lose light there when compared to use in a smaller room (same applies outdoors). It's astounding just how much power all that empty space eats up and there's only so much that 'magic' eTTL can do - you can't go wider than f/2.8 and you can't turn the flash up beyond 100% output. You very rapidly end up using full power on every flash. BTW, setting 100% power and then adding +3 FEC gives you ..... errr, 100% power still. A lot of folks don't seem to appreciate that full power means exactly that, full power - same way as you can't get 3 gallons out of a 2 gallon bucket!

Hence the response from Ultimachi about high ISO. It's not high ISO which gives noise, it's high ISO AND underexposure. You can get horrible noise at 100 ISO if you underexpose but it's more noticeable at the higher settings because usually we are trying to squeeze as much light as possible and erring towards underexposure anyway. Decades ago, I used to add ½ f/stop exposure in our dark English churches when using ISO 400 medium format film to avoid exactly the same problem - except it was called film grain then. Same effect though. (For those who know what I'm talking about, this was in addition to reciprocity failure compensation of course.)

You make no mention of your actual shooting distance but, like others here, I'm pretty certain that you'd be pumping the full belt of power through that flashtube on every single shot. I'm not surprised it got hot. I'd be far more surprised if it didn't overheat - you're simply overstretching the capabilities of this level of equipment. Although many of us advocate manual control, I honestly don't think that in this instance it would have made much difference if any (assuming you actually used the lens at f/2.8 not something smaller) to this specific problem.

Hi Whortleberry! That's some great info! Thank you! Glad I was close to correct

So yes, that was the case - all the right elements for an overheat. I was about 100ft from the stage. I did keep at f/2.8 since that lens is s constant f/2.8..

So for such a scene - Possibly go manual flash (only if it really helps the shots), crank the ISO and ensure proper exposure and I should be able to correct it in PP.. Note taken!

Guess the flash is otherwise decent as it has performed well for me at many other smaller parties never overheating.

Thank you again!

Your flash was firing at full power and overheated. I suspect you were shooting past the flashes useable distance.

Most small flashes like that are useless for anything ovver about 60 feet without an extender.

bigVinnie wrote in post #14746617
Your flash was firing at full power and overheated. I suspect you were shooting past the flashes useable distance.

Most small flashes like that are useless for anything ovver about 60 feet without an extender.

Wish there was a "Thanks" button!

bigVinnie - This makes sense now. I have not heard of an extender, guess I'll have to read up. Thanks again!

Hi back - you're very welcome, happy to chip in my bit of info to the pool.

OK, so you're sitting 100ft away from the performers. The lighting is well up to customary standards ie rubbish for photography. You have a maximum of f/2.8 to work with and a flash with a GN of 58 (see cynicism below) because the long lens will allow maximum flash zoom. With ISO 1600, this ought to be (just) within the capabilities of the flash but you're definitely going to be running at virtually full power every single 'pop'. Going to manual isn't going to change any of that. 3-4 'pops' a minute for an hour is 180-240 full power discharges through the flash tube, 90+% of which is heat. I'll bet your battery cells were also pretty hot when you changed them because of the massive drain you placed on them! Other than whacking the ISO up even further, I can't see any way of cutting the load on the YN565EX directly.

Of course, you could always arrive earlier and get better seats!!
Do they have a Dress Rehearsal? Could you attend that for photography?
The only other alternative seems to be to extract wallet, remove a further $150 and buy a second YN565EX so that you can change over every 15 minutes or so. Each would then have chance to cool and reset in the interim.
Interesting problem!

Metz used to make an 'extender' years ago, but I don't think they sold many and it was model specific anyway. Not heard of any current makes this side of the pond but maybe your side has more choices.

General information about GNs:-

1. In over 40 years in the business professionally, I have never ever yet known a flash manufacturer to underquote their GN (!) Anybody'd think they were trying to sell us things.
   
2. Makers determine their GN under specific lab conditions which include little 'enhancers' like:
   • An enclosed space.
     
   • Pale walls.
     
   • Mid height ceiling (9ft sort of thing rather than 20ft)
     
   • It's not unknown for walls to be white and glossy, which reflects more light and boosts the rating. Frowned upon but it has definitely happened.
     
   
   
3. Every make quotes the GN at the maximum zoom (where applicable) to make the unit seem as powerful as possible.
   
4. Studio strobe makers aren't blameless in this little game either - they too will pull sneaky tricks such as not mentioning which optional reflector is used when measuring (although they are getting more 'upfront' about this than hitherto).
   
5. Occasionally you will come across makers who quote GNs in feet instead of metres. Perfectly legitimate and honest but much more difficult to directly compare with makes quoted in metres.
   
6. Some makers are, shall we say, 'optimistic' about their GNs. In ultra-polite British circles, these are known as 'terminological inexactitudes'
   http://en.wikipedia.or​g …rminological_in​exactitude
   
7. As with battery capacity, there are psychological games being played where a GN of 60 seems very much better than a GN of 58. Even when you compare like with like, the difference is miniscule - certainly within normal shutter speed or aperture variations, hence just about meaningless in true terms to the user.
   

Whortleberry = knowledge!

I thank you very much! You've given me a lot to read up on.. I realize I have a long way to go before even beginning to understand the fundamentals of some of this stuff.

Thanks again! Good day!

This link will give you an idea of what an extender is and does. Even with one you are only getting out to 100 feet.

Problem with stages is they always suck for lighting. Even the guys shooting a 5d2 and 1.2 lenses complain.

bigVinnie wrote in post #14748877
This link will give you an idea of what an extender is and does. Even with one you are only getting out to 100 feet.

Problem with stages is they always suck for lighting. Even the guys shooting a 5d2 and 1.2 lenses complain.

Your latter comment makes me feel better knowing my hunch was sort of right and that I'm not such a n00b!

Thanks again guys!

Is this something that you will be doing regularly at (or for) the school? If so--and if it is allowed--get a light stand and a cheap set of wireless triggers and get your flash closer to the subjects if you need to sit in the back of the auditorium. That should allow you to set your flash to manual and lower the power.