I will be the first to admit that I do not know what I am doing when trying to mix two styles of lighting for indoor work. Like I said, I wanted to use continuous until I tried it. Then I realized I could liked my portraits better when bouncing my single flash. This was a $300 lesson (what the cheapo CFL setup cost). I am now leaning toward buying more speedlites, as I try to move away from the continuous lights. I did manage to shoot last night and keep the white BG blown out with the CFLs, and get what I consider good results with my speedlite as the main light. I began at ISO 100 just to see if I could even consider low ISO with the CFL backlights. I managed to get good results at ISO 100, f4.0@250. Does that mean it will be my setup.. No. But I can now get good results in a limited situation until I can purchase adequate lighting. I will see tonight how it does at ISO 400 and a more reasonable stop. I really wish I had done more research on the "strobist" approach, but live and learn.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Studio experts, please chime in...
- Thread starter 69chevy
- Start date
Peter Berressem
Veteran Member
Am I correct in assuming that you shot/ will shoot portraits of grown ups? They usually don't move around fast like children, so it's save to drop the shutter speed to 1/60 what brings you to f/8. The flash power has to be adjusted accordingly (two stops up), of course.
--
cheers, Peter
Germany
--
cheers, Peter
Germany
I guess I never mentioned that.. I shoot mostly outdoors but also shoot weddings. My portrait work for weddings gets done outdoors (or in well lit rooms) with reflectors, and my speedlite. I recently shot a wedding in Feb for a couple, and the bride was expecting. She wants me to do a maternity shoot but some of the more creative shots she wants need to be in a studio environment for modesty. I want to do studio type portraits eventually, of all types, so I am remodeling a room in my house. I chose continuous lights simply because I am used to sunlight. I didn't expect to be so disappointed with their performance. Now I am trying to use what I have for her shoot, and if I can use it well, I may continue with it...
Joseph S Wisniewski
Veteran Member
And they might not even be showing up in the picture, or contributing as much as you want.
They're 2000W "equivalent" to household tungsten. That means they're probably a grand total of 500W of fluorescent. I'm betting five 55W bulbs each.
Speedlights don't have an "equivalent", they work by the same technology as the CFL, ionized gas. So, that 500W number for your CFL banks is important.
The thing that throws most people when they start playing with continuous lights, and throws them even harder when they start mixing continuous lights and strobes, is the difference between "power" and "energy". Imagine you have a bucket containing a gallon of water. That's "energy", the amount of "stuff" that you actually have. Energy is measured in Joules, or watt-seconds. Energy is what matters, just like the amount of water you have is what matters. If you need to make a cup of tea, you need to have 8 ounces of water. It doesn't matter if you dipped it out of the bucket in one scoop, or you filled the cup with an eye dropper, one drop at a time, as long as you get 8 ounces, you can make tea.
Pictures are the same way. A particular picture, ISO, aperture, and distance, may need a certain number of watt-seconds. A speedlight can deliver about 60 watt-seconds. If your picture needs 30 watt-seconds, you get a good exposure with the speedliight on half "power". I put power in quotes, because it's not "power" at all, that's the "half energy" setting. The speedlight controls work on energy, not power. This is good, because (repeat this a couple of times) "energy makes pictures".
The continuous lights produce "power", in watts. Power is the flow of energy. You have 500W of power. If you let it flow for 1/10 second, you have 500W * 1/10 second or 50 watt-seconds of energy, pretty close to the energy of a speedlight.
Yes. It's a flaming pain. You saw that video and site that Chuck Dembrey linked. That guy was shooting at 1/15 sec, because he needed to let his 5000W of lights "flow" that long to get enough energy to balance his studio strobes. That's about 400 watt-seconds. Pros work with a lot of energy on fashion shoots. I have four 640 watt-second strobes, one 1300 watt-second, and maybe eight 300 w-s that I use for smaller stuff. A typical 4 light setup lets me hit a subject with up to 3200 w-s, and typical shots are lower, but still up around 600. That's the energy of 10 speedlights.
OK, first off, more people aren't "all flash, or all continuous", most people are "all flash". All continuous is rare, because you just can't get enough energy, without insane power. Your models complained about 500W. You have to let 500W flow for 1/10 second to get 50 w-s, the energy of a single speedlight. It's hard to take a sharp shot of a "normal" person (jittery senior, nervous bride) at 1/10 sec. because people have little body motions all the time. You normally shoot people at 1/30 sec or faster. That insures you'll have a good percentage of "keepers". 1/30 sec * 500 W = 16 w-s, 1/3 of a speedlight. Look at the strobist site, 4-8 speedlights per picture, little home-made brackets to use 2 or 4 speedlights together as a "main".
Now, one reason why people don't mix in continuous for background is that it's hard to make everything "track". You're having trouble with your lighting ratios, because you don't understand power vs. energy. Few do.
Yes, if you're all flash, everything "tracks" when you adjust energy. Is your background 1/2 too hot? Drop the setting on that strobe half a stop. Done. It's that simple.
If mix continuous and strobe, then you've got a problem. Is the background 1/2 a stop too hot? You can either reduce the continuous "flow" by bumping the shutter speed 1/2 stop faster, or increase the main flash energy 1/2 stop, then stop the aperture down 1/2 stop to compensate. A switch that lets you select 1 through five bulbs is just a 2.3 stop range, and you often can't use that little range, because you're reducing the power of something that didn't have enough in the first place. The speedlights adjust over an 8 stop range, and so do good studio strobes.
You've got a second problem, if you're shooting down where motion is a prolem, 1/30 sec or slower, you get motion blur "silhouettes" of background behind the subject. Again, that worked for the fashion shoot in the video, because they planned for it, but it's not an effect you want in every shot.
We won't even get into the whole CRI and color temperature issues...
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Veteran Member
People don't appreciate the watt equivalence of a window. I built an "electric window" once. 24x48 inch units, linkable to make 48x48 or 48x72. Each 24x48 had twelve 40W 48 inch linear fluorescent lights, overdriven to 60W, so 720W per panel, and the typical "window" was 2 panels, 1440W. That's about 3x the power of your bank (the 2000W that's really under 500W). I get another 2 stop advantage over a CFL bank with soft box, because the linear tubes are direct light, no softbox diffusers. So, more or less, 10-12x the power you used.
That's about what it takes to simulate one indirect (north light) window.
read what I wrote in the "power vs. energy" response.
I don't think you'll hit the "use it well" point, mixing "low power" continuous and flash is just too aggravating. Bu I'll wish you good luck, anyway.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
The "power" of a light is typically its brightness, which is measured in lumens. It is possible for a light to consume less energy to produce equivalent lumens; a 40 watt CFL bulb typically produces 1,600 lumens - about the same as 100 watt incandescent bulb.
Cameras meter light, not energy...and flashes do not increase or reduce the energy they consume based on the camera's exposure requirements - the only thing that changes is the duration of the flash. The intensity (i.e. power) of the flash is constant; the duration of light emission is variable.
No, that's entirely false. You're attempting to correlate electrical power consumption to brightness as if they are linearly interchangeable. If you were using identical lights for everything then maybe you could get away with this method, but what you should be comparing is the lumen output.
If you have four 55 watt CFL bulbs, they're probably good for 2,000 lumens each which means 8,000 lumens (assuming the light is focused on the same point).
Meanwhile, a Nikon SB-800 produces upwards of 1.4 million lumens (calculated from its guide number) per flash.
There is a substantial difference in light output and you cannot get accurate numbers trying to calculate this using the power consumed by the lights.
And yet the brightness of one speedlight is > than your typical 4-light setup.
To answer your question, see above. The light output of a flash while it is firing is substantially higher than what you get with studio/modelling lights. The reason you use modeling lights is to compose the subject. You will be able to see how the light falls on the subject and move lights around as needed. When you take a picture using the flash, the light patterns should be identical to how they were under the modeling lights, just brighter.
Why does the flash need so much more power? Because you're camera is gathering reflected light and the modeling lights do not allow for enough light to be reflected to get those top-notch exposures that you see in magazines or other photo-rich publications.
Even fewer people understand that light intensity has its very own measurement - lumen.
Yeah it's a shame modern flashes don't have something that let's you sync at higher speeds.
I will. If you want to get close to "perfect" WB when mixing lights of varying color temperature, you can follow these steps:
1) Get a paper coffee filter and place it over your lens.
2) Get to your camera's WB menu and choose to set WB (white balance) manually.
3) Point the camera at your subject as if you were taking their photo and set the WB on your camera. It should take a test photo which it uses to calibrate its WB.
4) Enjoy photos with proper WB, which can be fine-tuned in post (you're shooting RAW aren't you).
Peter Berressem
Veteran Member
...with excitement 
--
cheers, Peter
Germany
--
cheers, Peter
Germany
"If you want to get close to "perfect" WB when mixing lights of varying color temperature, you can follow these steps:
1) Get a paper coffee filter and place it over your lens.
2) Get to your camera's WB menu and choose to set WB (white balance) manually.
3) Point the camera at your subject as if you were taking their photo and set the WB on your camera. It should take a test photo which it uses to calibrate its WB.
4) Enjoy photos with proper WB, which can be fine-tuned in post (you're shooting RAW aren't you)."
Try it -- but don't expect to correct in PS the mess of having different sources
creating different 'pools' of color on the subject. I assume you want
to produce conventional portraits -- not some pop-art version. Trying to do work for money without the proper equipment is unfair to the customer.
How would you feel if your plumber showed up without a proper set of tools?
Hot lights can be made to work -- but you need to match your technique
to your equipment:
work quickly to keep your subject from melting or sweating
don't mix color temps (unless you like blue backgrounds)
buy fast lenses
adopt a style that looks good with lots of 'grain' (from high ISO) and limited DOF
I would suggest investing in low power flash units with modeling lights.
You might have to crank the ISO up to 1600 to get to f 5.6 but with
APS-C, that will be plenty of DOF.
And, most importantly, you'll be learning stuff you can use when you
finally have the cash for Broncolor.
1) Get a paper coffee filter and place it over your lens.
2) Get to your camera's WB menu and choose to set WB (white balance) manually.
3) Point the camera at your subject as if you were taking their photo and set the WB on your camera. It should take a test photo which it uses to calibrate its WB.
4) Enjoy photos with proper WB, which can be fine-tuned in post (you're shooting RAW aren't you)."
Try it -- but don't expect to correct in PS the mess of having different sources
creating different 'pools' of color on the subject. I assume you want
to produce conventional portraits -- not some pop-art version. Trying to do work for money without the proper equipment is unfair to the customer.
How would you feel if your plumber showed up without a proper set of tools?
Hot lights can be made to work -- but you need to match your technique
to your equipment:
work quickly to keep your subject from melting or sweating
don't mix color temps (unless you like blue backgrounds)
buy fast lenses
adopt a style that looks good with lots of 'grain' (from high ISO) and limited DOF
I would suggest investing in low power flash units with modeling lights.
You might have to crank the ISO up to 1600 to get to f 5.6 but with
APS-C, that will be plenty of DOF.
And, most importantly, you'll be learning stuff you can use when you
finally have the cash for Broncolor.
"Yeah it's a shame modern flashes don't have something that let's you sync at higher speeds"
They do...but multiple, low power pops aren't the answer.
Generally, it's not the flash that has the problem, it's the shutter on the camera.
Want to synch at higher shutterspeeds? Get a leaf shutter. Remember the
90mm f 2.8 Leaf Shutter lens for the Pentax 67?
The 67 synched at 1/30th -- with the 90mm you could get 1/500th.
As for Joseph's response, I get the sense he's getting
tired of seeing his pearls of wisdom sink in the mire.
They do...but multiple, low power pops aren't the answer.
Generally, it's not the flash that has the problem, it's the shutter on the camera.
Want to synch at higher shutterspeeds? Get a leaf shutter. Remember the
90mm f 2.8 Leaf Shutter lens for the Pentax 67?
The 67 synched at 1/30th -- with the 90mm you could get 1/500th.
As for Joseph's response, I get the sense he's getting
tired of seeing his pearls of wisdom sink in the mire.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Veteran Member
Thank you for that simplistic explanation of luminous efficacy, the ratio of visible power, or "flux", in lumens, to electrical power, in watts. But, as I explained earlier, there is no point, at all, in talking about any sort of "equivalence" ratios between CFL lamps and strobes, because "Speedlights don't have an "equivalent", they work by the same technology as the CFL, ionized gas."
Both CFL bulbs and xenon strobes are low pressure gas discharge lights, with a luminous efficacy of about 45 lumens/watt. They have the same luminous efficacy, the same lumen/watt power ratio or lumen-second/watt-second energy ratio.
You're making a "this or that" distinction where none exists. Cameras meter luminous power, and compute the luminous energy needed for the picture: they do the integration and give you an aperture/shutter speed pair.
Can you rephrase that in English, please.
And power times duration is energy. Simple, isn't it. The flash can't control power, it controls energy.
You are using some definition of "false" with which I am unfamiliar. What I stated is absolutely true. Try to remember your high school physics.
I am not "attempting" anything, I am "doing" what has been done for decades by physicists.
Once more, in this situation, you do have identical lights, both the CFL and the xenon strobe are low pressure, 10-15mm gas discharge tubes.
In other words, a luminous efficacy of 36 lumens/watt, a bit low, but more or less equal to the 44 lumen-sec/watt-sec rating on my Paul Buff Einsteins. They specify 28,000 lumen-seconds output from 640 watt-seconds.
Big assumption. It's hard to "focus" four CFLs, a "cloverleaf" of light about 10 inches across and 6 inches thick. You'll have a lot easier time focusing a strobe, when the single turn of tube is 1/50 the volume.
So? I've never seen a need to use the power (either lumens or watts) rating of a speedlight. Using them means you have to play with durations that aren't readily available to the photographer. Whereas the watt-second energy numbers are either directly available (studio strobes are controlled in watt-seconds) or calculable from guide numbers.
Really? You said earlier that there wasn't. You were the one who provided the lumen and watt ratings for the CFL, which yielded the 36 L/W figure, and the 43 L/W for a studio strobe is readily available.
Of course you can. I just did, using data you provided.
(to be continued)
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Veteran Member
You've got to stop quoting people out of context. What I said was "I have four 640 watt-second strobes, one 1300 watt-second, and maybe eight 300 w-s that I use for smaller stuff. A typical 4 light setup lets me hit a subject with up to 3200 w-s, and typical shots are lower, but still up around 600."
The brightness of one speedlight is most certainly not greater than four 640 watt-second studio strobes. A speedlight is just a 60 watt-second strobe.
Indeed. See the part of "above" that I wrote, and ignore the rest.
You're the only one talking about the modeling lights.
Because the durations are shorter. But that's irrelevant, because power has nothing to do with taking pictures. That's all about energy. Flux multiplied by duration.
You need exactly the same amount of energy, the same number of lumen seconds, whether you get it from strobes, CFL, a bonfire, or crushing wintogreen "life savers" candy.
Why do you keep bringing up modeling lights?
Sorry, but you are not one of the "fewer people" that "understand" things. Luminous intensity is measured in candelas, or lumens/steradians. Lumens are the units of flux.
But that's as irrelevant, really, as your continual mention of modeling lights, or that weirdness you did with the lumen output of a speedlight.
Indeed. What you said so sarcastically has truth in it that's way beyond your ability to recognizer.
You don't understand flux, intensity, efficacy, or exposure, and you tried to tackle CRI with a coffee filter that only matches color temperature for ideal black-body sources and can't compensate for the CRI of a CFL.
LOL.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Veteran Member
It's not really that exciting when some anonymous newbie shows up, tossing around terms that he's heard but doesn't really understand, quoting people out of context, and taking the conversation off into multiple diversions....with excitement
Those kind of people are easy to counter at every turn.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Thanks for cutting and pasting something from wikipedia because you have no idea what you're talking about here.
Flash bulbs and CFL use a similar principle of operation - that is they use high voltage electricity to 'excite' gas stored in a glass tube to emit light...but that's it.
Please stop talking about watts...or you may as well start talking about horsepower because it's equally irrelevant.
Power is defined as the ability to do work over time. Light output is measured in intensity, either in a direct point or its ability to fill an area (lux). At no point in time does the power consumed by the lights become relevant in calculating their output as it pertains to photography. Lumen output is determined by the efficiency of the light itself. CFL is more efficient than incandescent, which is why a 40W CFL bulb has the same measured light output as a 100W incandescent.
What? The flash controls the DURATION of the flash while the shutter is released. The longer it is open, the more light will be reflected for the duration of the shutter release and therefore more light will reach the camera's sensor.
Are you exposing your camera to PHOTONS (i.e. light) or electricity? If you're doing the latter, awesome, you developed an entirely new form of taking pictures...but for the rest of us stuck capturing photons, measuring lumens is all that really matters if we're trying to gauge the amount of light required for an ideal exposure.
You do realize that you are free to consult with google and wikipedia at any time to fill in the gaps between what you don't know and fact. The correct unit of measure here is lumens not watts.
So now you're claiming to be a physicist?
That is irrelevant. Their light output is really all that matters.
You can ignore watts; lumens are all that matter. Lumens / Watt would be a description of efficiency, not efficacy.
No, you can use a dish shaped reflector. I only mentioned that to notate that the true lumens at a given point can vary based on the positioning of the lights themselves.Big assumption. It's hard to "focus" four CFLs, a "cloverleaf" of light about 10 inches across and 6 inches thick. You'll have a lot easier time focusing a strobe, when the single turn of tube is 1/50 the volume.
Did it occur to you that this flawed "watt seconds" measurement system was invented by the people selling the gear to make you believe their's is better than the competitor's brand...which is so bad they don't even list the "watt seconds" measurement?
The bottom line is that all you need to know is the lumen output of your lights - the power they consume is irrelevant unless you are concerned about your electric bill.
SB-800: 1.4 million lumens
4xCFL: 8,000 lumens
8,000 vs 1.4 million...not substantial?
You can calculate something but it's not going to tell you what you need to know...and I can make music by banging on random piano keys; that doesn't mean anyone is going to want to listen to it.
--
http://www.flickr.com/sunlyte/
And you need to stop spreading misinformation.
If you had studio lights that are providing a constant 1.4 million lumen it would be worse than looking at the sun through binoculars. Flash strobes all provide similar or higher output levels in the 1M plus lumen range. Most photographers use this thing called a light meter to calibrate their flashes - this is the first (and hopefully last) time I hear about "watt seconds" being used to "figure" light output.
LOL feeling insecure about something?
I'm also the only one not trying to make lighting inane and asinine.
No. A flash is as bright as it is because the light is being reflected, and the people who designed cameras realized that there is a substantial reduction in light intensity when it is reflected.
I'm half expecting marty mcfly and the doc to jump into this thread and tell us all how we need 20,000 gigawatts to make it back to 88.
If they all had the same efficiency, i.e. 1W = 1 Lumen then your overly complicated method of doing things would "work", but it will fail when the efficiency of the lighting changes or varies among different lights.
Why do you keep bringing up watts?
Please stop copying from wikipedia. You googling things you don't know about is good, but pretending to know what you're talking about simply because you did a google search is bad.
Any studio worth its salt is going to have modeling lights and strobes, not one or the other. Why are you so fixated on my mention of modeling lights? I was answering his question - something you failed to do.
I was being sarcastic.
WTF are you talking about? Seriously you're like the guy who slaps a few stickers on his honda hatchback and thinks he gains "horsepower" from the stickers. Are they really letting you get away with this on these forums or do they keep you around to laugh at you?
You are basically regurgitating something you read somewhere else, without understanding any of it, trying to pass it off as if you're the premiere authority on the matter - it's clear you're not. I just hope people don't stumble across this thread and think that following your "advice" is in any way shape or form a wise decision.
The coffee filter example I provided is an easy and functional way to set your camera's white balance optimally for a scene with multiple lightsources of varying color temperature. It works; and it works quite well. You can spend money on something like the expodisc to achieve the same result.
Do us a favor and figure out how many watt-seconds that pot of coffee will need to brew - then you can pour us a cup while the real photographers get back to work.
--
http://www.flickr.com/sunlyte/
Joseph S Wisniewski
Veteran Member
Oh, is that where you got all the drivel you've been doling out?
I agree, that's definitely your problem.
I doubt I'll be the last person putting you their ignore list today...
Of course, you'll just get another new anonymous account. SunLyte obviously isn't your first, and it's not likely to be your last. You're probably very used to being blocked.
You keep coming back to coffee, over and over and over...
Try decaf.
Or tea.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
What drivel? Please specifically point out what I said that isn't a fact ?
When you're in denial, ignoring the facts (and the people who present them) is usually the best way to go if you want to stay in your fantasy world.
So are the admins on this site in the habit of blocking people who dispel the swaths of bogus information posted by wannabe "pros" like you? It would be a disservice to their community...and this is my only account on DPR.
Pretty sure I mentioned it exactly one time, but hey who's keeping count...and thanks for reminding me - is it ready yet? I'll have another cup.
I'm just glad you are such a level-headed and sensible person who isn't going to troll other threads because he is mad about this one...
--
http://www.flickr.com/sunlyte/
I think you should be able to get this setup to work.
When you take a flash picture, the duration of the flash is around 1/1000 of a second. That means the flash part of the picture is all exposed in that 1/1000 of a second. Your shutter will be open for 1/250 sec or longer. When your camera is not recording the flash exposure, it is recording an ambient light exposure.
Normally in the studio you do not want any ambient light in the picture because it is tungsten or something that may be different color temperature. Usually you use the fastest shutter speed your camera can sync at to minimize ambient light. In your case though you are illuminating the background with a continuous light. So the background lighting will be part of the ambient exposure. This means in addition to controlling the background by varying the intensity of the lights, you can control it with your shutter speed.
You should be able to get good results at ISO 200 or 400, depending on your camera, so you don't have to use ISO 100. Take a shot at ISO 200, f/8 and 1/250 of second exposure. Adjust you flashes to get correct exposure on the subject with these settings. If the background is not bright enough, decrease the shutter speed. In a studio setting you should be able to bring the shutter speed down to around 1/60 s, which increases the exposure on the background by 2 f/stops.
Using this approach, you may get a little ambient light in your pictures, but I don't think this is anything to worry about. Professional studios usually have dark colored walls and ceiling to minimize reflected flash off the walls and ceilings. Anyone using a home studio has to deal with reflected flash light off the walls and ceilings which is a different color temperature than his flashes anyway. Usually this just makes your lighting a little warmer looking. You can correct this in PP or sometimes people like the slightly warmer look.
When you take a flash picture, the duration of the flash is around 1/1000 of a second. That means the flash part of the picture is all exposed in that 1/1000 of a second. Your shutter will be open for 1/250 sec or longer. When your camera is not recording the flash exposure, it is recording an ambient light exposure.
Normally in the studio you do not want any ambient light in the picture because it is tungsten or something that may be different color temperature. Usually you use the fastest shutter speed your camera can sync at to minimize ambient light. In your case though you are illuminating the background with a continuous light. So the background lighting will be part of the ambient exposure. This means in addition to controlling the background by varying the intensity of the lights, you can control it with your shutter speed.
You should be able to get good results at ISO 200 or 400, depending on your camera, so you don't have to use ISO 100. Take a shot at ISO 200, f/8 and 1/250 of second exposure. Adjust you flashes to get correct exposure on the subject with these settings. If the background is not bright enough, decrease the shutter speed. In a studio setting you should be able to bring the shutter speed down to around 1/60 s, which increases the exposure on the background by 2 f/stops.
Using this approach, you may get a little ambient light in your pictures, but I don't think this is anything to worry about. Professional studios usually have dark colored walls and ceiling to minimize reflected flash off the walls and ceilings. Anyone using a home studio has to deal with reflected flash light off the walls and ceilings which is a different color temperature than his flashes anyway. Usually this just makes your lighting a little warmer looking. You can correct this in PP or sometimes people like the slightly warmer look.
D
Darrell Spreen
Guest
I don't think you know who you're talking to. Perhaps you should do a little research before smarting off.
--
Darrell
Thank you for your posts. I have missed quite a bit of discussion here.
I am still working on my setup, but have found that powering down the flash enough for the CFL lighting to "show up" is not as easy as I originally thought. I will post up some shots in a day or two. I am really at the point where I am figuring out why people don't mix the two..
I originally thought the two styles of light would be more compatible. My goal was to lessen the intensity of the flash to match (via bouncing or otherwise adjusting) to avoid the "in your face" brightness of the "hot light".
If you were to measure the actual lumens coming off of the flash, yes it would be in the ballpark of a million lumens. This would render the CFLs useless if I pointed the flash directly at the models face, but that was never my intention.
I was more looking for anyone who has ever successfully done this, or for tips on how to pull it off. Thank you all for your input.
I am still working on my setup, but have found that powering down the flash enough for the CFL lighting to "show up" is not as easy as I originally thought. I will post up some shots in a day or two. I am really at the point where I am figuring out why people don't mix the two..
I originally thought the two styles of light would be more compatible. My goal was to lessen the intensity of the flash to match (via bouncing or otherwise adjusting) to avoid the "in your face" brightness of the "hot light".
If you were to measure the actual lumens coming off of the flash, yes it would be in the ballpark of a million lumens. This would render the CFLs useless if I pointed the flash directly at the models face, but that was never my intention.
I was more looking for anyone who has ever successfully done this, or for tips on how to pull it off. Thank you all for your input.
CharlieDIY
Veteran Member
I've tried it. Mostly what I found over a period of years was that mixed lighting drove me nuts, and upped equipment costs--I still have Smith-Victor hot lights from the pre-quartz era. Today, with quartz bulbs, I'd use them for video if I shot video, but otherwise, they were a waste of money. Color corrected CFLs of any appreciable wattage are even more wasteful of cash, and won't mount in most older hot light reflectors.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum