I thought this may be of some interest to those of you using or wanting to use flashbulbs. I too want to experiment and learn to recreate that "look" that electronic strobes just can't give you.

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag2-6/mag2-9flashbulb.shtml

Hope you find it interesting.

Have you looked in on Bill Cress's Cress Camera website? The man knows his flashbulbs, all right, and can supply some surprising things.

As one who gratefully made the transition from bulbs to electronic flash three decades ago, I will assert diffidently (not wishing to provoke a rant on the part of an unreconstructed magnesium addict) that the quality of light they produce is much more a function of the reflector design than of the light source itself. Our college publications (c. 1960) owned a "Speed Graphic," a "Graflite" flashgun and a Graflex "Stroboflash" (either I or II, I don't know whether I ever knew which) with an enormous battery-pack. If we needed three or four pictures, we'd take the bulb flash, because it was a lot lighter, and it put out more light. But the "Stroboflash," which had a head with a paraboloidal reflector about 5 ins. in diameter, produced light of the same quality, so far as I ever could see.

A more obvious difference is the lighting ratio. The usual flashbulbs, #25s and so forth, are a lot more powerful than just about any portable strobe. Because they're brighter, you stop down more, so ambient light has less effect on the exposure (or, more properly, what gets exposed). This, of course, often produces more pronounced shadows. And,when the foreground is correctly exposed (a consummation devoutly to be wished), the background tends to print darker. All of this follows naturally from the added power.

That said, there are situations (and the Cress interview identifies a number of them) in which a single #3 flashbulb can light up something that you'd need thousands of dollars' worth of electronic flash gear, and a platoon of assistants (or a mule train), to illuminate.

Unfortunately, the market does not favor expendable items that somebody needs two of in an average year!

They lost me when it mentioned something about walking along firing off flash bulbs. Why can't you do that with a flash?

The same question occurred to me. I imagine that the premise is that a typical railway coach is so long that you need to be forty feet away from it to get it all in, with anything approximating a normal lens; and if you require flash to work at f:11 or so, you'd have to use an awfully powerful strobe.

Can't you just fire the flash a few times? I looked at the site selling bulbs. The cheapest one was around $3. Enough bulbs to light a train might rent a fair amount of lighting.

Quote:

On 2004-07-23 14:15, Nick wrote: They lost me when it mentioned something about walking along firing off flash bulbs. Why can't you do that with a flash?

They do!
http://www.rit.edu/~biomed/activities/bigshot_latest.html

I love to look at these stunning shots using light "painting". Some extraordinary results can be achieved using this technique. The timing and coordination on the Swedish shot must have been a real challenge to set up. Great!!!

Did anybody see what happened to shot #3?

Was 1989 a bad year?

Maybe they forgot to pull the slide!!!!