Time to buy some lights

Edgley

Howdy,

I need to do some shots of people sitting on a sofa, maybe four people wide, with a couple standing around as well.
I feel more comfortable with continous lighting, but not sure how many nor what size I need.

I have found a kit here that is at the top of what I want to spend.

My thoughts are two at the side, one higher up and use reflectors if I need to provide any up lights for shadows.

Is it any good? What sort of size coverage should it give me please?

Thanks,
Simon.

Art Scott

Are they halogen or what type of light source are they??.....I am not a fan of continuous lighting as most gets really hot and if something happend that your subject or model is burned that could leave a scar for life......I know we hope nothing ever happens that can adversely affect us but it does.....I have no qualms about leaving my strobes plugged in and turned on....actually use the model light for room lighting a lot of times....but I would not dream of doing this with continuous lighting as the heat would be unbearable.

Also the closer the lighting is to subject the softer the effect, the farther away the harder the lines and shadows......so just how close can you get with "hot lights" (continous lighting is called hot lights due the nature of most to get hotter by the second)??

Think of your subjects comfort and safety........................

Edgley

They are CF so don't get hot at all and use a fraction of the power of more traditional lamps.

ziggy53

Edgley wrote:

They are CF so don't get hot at all and use a fraction of the power of more traditional lamps.

While I'm not opposed to fluorescent lighting in photography, there are some limitations.

The first is that fluorescent lights are not a continuous spectrum. Fluorescent phosphors work in specific wavelengths only and the mixed phosphors in a daylight fluorescent only simulate continous spectrum lighting. The results with fleshtones are usually less than optimal.

Daylight fluorescent bulbs use a measure for color accuracy called a "CRI" index. Even a CRI of 95 may not be accurate enough to avoid obvious and visible tonal differences.

There are "extremely" expensive fluorescent lights that use extremely expensive techniques to get around the problem, but even they are not perfect.

All fluorescent bulbs flicker. Modern electronic ballasts flicker at a very high rate, so as long as you use moderate shutter speeds, you should be OK. Up to around 1/125th should be no problem at all.

Some of the longer fluorescent fixtures still use older ballast technology and you may have to test to make sure they work at your shutter speeds. (Shoot several frames in full manual exposure and compare them side-by-side on a monitor.)

The flicker can also affect exposure systems so that full manual exposure might be required for best results.

Some daylight balanced bulbs emit significant UV which can affect tonality.

Electronic flash units, by comparison, are generally a much more continuous spectrum. They also generally allow faster shutter speeds and better control over ambient light.

mrcoons

ziggy53 wrote:

While I'm not opposed to fluorescent lighting in photography, there are some limitations.

The first is that fluorescent lights are not a continuous spectrum. Fluorescent phosphors work in specific wavelengths only and the mixed phosphors in a daylight fluorescent only simulate continous spectrum lighting. The results with fleshtones are usually less than optimal.

Daylight fluorescent bulbs use a measure for color accuracy called a "CRI" index. Even a CRI of 95 may not be accurate enough to avoid obvious and visible tonal differences.

There are "extremely" expensive fluorescent lights that use extremely expensive techniques to get around the problem, but even they are not perfect.

All fluorescent bulbs flicker. Modern electronic ballasts flicker at a very high rate, so as long as you use moderate shutter speeds, you should be OK. Up to around 1/125th should be no problem at all.

Some of the longer fluorescent fixtures still use older ballast technology and you may have to test to make sure they work at your shutter speeds. (Shoot several frames in full manual exposure and compare them side-by-side on a monitor.)

The flicker can also affect exposure systems so that full manual exposure might be required for best results.

Some daylight balanced bulbs emit significant UV which can affect tonality.

Electronic flash units, by comparison, are generally a much more continuous spectrum. They also generally allow faster shutter speeds and better control over ambient light.

Ziggy, do you have any experience with the Westcott Spiderlite's (TD3 or TD5)?

ziggy53

mrcoons wrote:

Ziggy, do you have any experience with the Westcott Spiderlite's (TD3 or TD5)?

No experience, but they are a true "hot" light and I have plenty of experience with other hot lights. (Mostly Lowel and Smith Victor). I would not use them for people stuff because they make the pupils pretty small.

Electronic flash is still best for people images for a great many reasons.

For a "very" one-sided review of the SpiderLights:

http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/Product_Comparisons/Starlite_vs._Westcott__Spiderlite/index.html

mrcoons

ziggy53 wrote:

For a "very" one-sided review of the SpiderLights:

http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/Product_Comparisons/Starlite_vs._Westcott__Spiderlite/index.html

Thanks ziggy!

Edgley

If I go the flash route I am presuming I will need another 2 SB600 ( I already have one) and softboxes for them all. I guess a proper wireless controller would be recommended too, that seems like its going to be getting on for around £500; that could be a problem though.

Any recommendations for a cheaper, but good enough flash rather than getting more SB600?

Thanks.

Don Kondra

Just to clarify,

From Alzo Digital

These special Photo CFL (Compact Fluorescent Light) bulbs have a natural "daylight" balanced color temperature of 5500K. These bulbs are shipped with our ALZO "Cool-Lite" kits. These special energy saving bulbs are "flicker free" and specifically designed for digital photo imaging. They produce a soft diffuse light with CRI of 91 and bulb life is exceptional at about 10,000 hours.

But the slow shutter speed necessary is not appropriate for people shots

Cheers, Don

Crossbarphoto

ziggy53 wrote:

No experience, but they are a true "hot" light and I have plenty of experience with other hot lights. (Mostly Lowel and Smith Victor).

Pretty sure these are NOT hot, especially when loaded with the Compact Fluorescent Bulbs.

Don Kondra

Very interesting,

Spiderlite TD5
The Spiderlite TD5 set the standard as the first constant light using either daylight balanced fluorescent lamps, Tungsten Halogen lamps or studio strobe. Whether shooting still photography or video, you can insure you are prepared for whatever lighting situation gets thrown your way. No second guessing with meters and slaves

So they are hot and cold

Cheers, Don

ziggy53

Crossbarphoto wrote:

Pretty sure these are NOT hot, especially when loaded with the Compact Fluorescent Bulbs.

True, Wescott sells cheap compact florescent bulbs to fill the fixture, but they only have a CRI of 93. Unfortunately, that's not close enough to continuous spectrum to be useful for many applications.

You can load the fixture with much better compact florescent bulbs (with a very high CRI). You would still have the problem with small pupils in people's eyes however.

The strobes that Wescott sells are the cheap screw in flashes with one output level and the 4 flashes that you can load the fixture with are about the same cumulative output as 1 Canon 580 flash or 1 Nikon SD800 (or so).

JohnBiggs

Honestly I'd do two SB-28s, vivitars, or Lumipros, 2 shoot through umbrellas, 2 lightstands, 2 swivels, and a set of radios to fire it all.

Done. No cords, more light than the continuous system, and much more compact.

rpcrowe

More comfortable with continuous lighting...

Edgley wrote:

I feel more comfortable with continuous lighting, but not sure how many nor what size I need.

You mention being more comfortable with continuous lighting. I am assuming that this is because (to steal a computer term) continuous is "what you see is what you get" lighting.

Forget about using hotshoe flashes. Use a one or a pair of studio strobes bounced into umbrellas. The modeling light of a studio strobe will let you see what the flash will give you. THAT IS THE MAIN (BUT, CERTAINLY NOT THE ONLY) ADVANTAGE OF THE STUDIO STROBE OVER A HOTSHOE STROBE (Yes, I know that I shouted that.) It was worth shouting over.

Additionally, you can use a larger umbrella with a studio strobe than you ever could with the tadpole hotshoe flashes. Additionally, studio strobes are a lot (that is a LOT!) more powerful than the little hotshoe flashes.

But, are they are they a LOT more expensive... Usually not. In fact you can get some very inexpensive used studio strobes which will suit your needs very easily. Look at these oldies but goodies... Not a lot of bells and whistles but the old WL 5,000 and WL 10,000 "coffee can" strobes are like the Energizer Bunny. They keep going and going...

http://cgi.ebay.com/PAUL-C-BUFF-White-lightning-10-000BCPS-Studio-Flash_W0QQitemZ120481169265QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1c0d3cbf71

On the other hand, using continuous tungsten or other hotlights, you can always treat your customers to a barbecue. Simply hang some hot dogs in front of the lights and they will cook as you shoot!

Art Scott

ANOTHER suggestion forthe HOTSHOE DIARIES.....Joe McNally shoots large commerical shoots with hotsoe flashes and produces big light with them.....I am finding the book quite interesting and Scott Kelby's "THE DIGITAL PHOTGRAPHY BOOK....vol 3".....both remove the stigma that hotshoe strobes have.......and again a push for the strobist.com ....................

JohnBiggs

rpcrowe wrote:

Additionally, you can use a larger umbrella with a studio strobe than you ever could with the tadpole hotshoe flashes. Additionally, studio strobes are a lot (that is a LOT!) more powerful than the little hotshoe flashes.

I wouldn't say a LOT... http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=148397

I wouldn't call them tadpoles either.

Scott_Quier

JohnBiggs wrote:

Honestly I'd do two SB-28s, vivitars, or Lumipros, 2 shoot through umbrellas, 2 lightstands, 2 swivels, and a set of radios to fire it all.

Done. No cords, more light than the continuous system, and much more compact.

On "rule" of lighting is to use additional lighting only when you have a problem that can be solved with that light. I think a short scenario description is in order here:

You arrive on location, if possible on a day other than the shooting day, but at least a bit before you are expected to shoot...
Evaluate your scene for light. Do you see any problems? What's the biggest problem? Will additional lighting solve that problem? If so, add a light to the mix. If not move on to the next problem. Repeat until there are no more solvable problems in the scene.

For a 4-person-wide couch and a couple of people scattered around, there's a very, very good chance that JohnBigg's solution will address all your problems. The shoot-thru umbies will difuse the light quite nicely. In addition, you'll get back-scatter from each umby that will reflect off the ceiling and wall behind the light - making for some nice fill.