Photography tent and continuous tungsten lights......

[odie]

I just purchased these items from Choice Woods, and wondering if anyone has used them. Any suggestions for use?

Photography tent is here, and lights are on the way......have not used them yet.

Thanks for your comments.

ooc

http://www.choice-woods.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=81&product_id=3658

http://www.choice-woods.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=81&product_id=3659

 

[john lucas]

The tent is OK. The lights are a complete joke. Don't spend the money on them. I can make them work but have 30 years of photo experience. You need a more powerful light up above and to one side to light the top and one side of the cube. I can usually get buy with just one light positioned to light the subject well and give it shape. then I use a reflector to bounce light back into the front or side of the object to fill in the shadows.
Here's the light that I use. http://www.adorama.com/LTO210.html I don't use the light tents much any more. I use this light and a soft box light but that isn't the best choice for many amateurs especially if your shooting glossy work although if it's really glossy the light tent doesn't work well either.
Here's the soft box. http://www.adorama.com/FPSSB.html
Here are some smaller lights with reflectors that will work better than the ones sold with that softbox.
http://www.alzodigital.com/online_store/cfl-reflector-light-bulb.htm
http://www.alzodigital.com/online_store/alzo_switched_socket.htm

This is a good light tent on the inexpensive side.
http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-30-Photo-Soft-Light/dp/B001TKCZVM/ref=pd_cp_p_2

What many people do when using a photo cube is to light everything evenly. Although this does work it makes the piece look flat and if it's glossy you get some bad reflections.
What I do is place the light up high enough to light the top and one side. Move it forward until it just starts to leak inside and then back it up a hair. This will light the top and one side of the piece more than the other side. This gives it shape and appears round instead of flat. Sometimes that's all it takes. If the dark side is too dark take a white card as a reflector and bounce light back into the dark side. You can rotate the light a little bit toward the camera to make it easier to pick up what I call "raw" light and bounce more light back in if necessary.
Always use some sort of lens hood if your camera has one. Light cubes tend to bounce a lot of light back into the lens and it kills the sharpness and contrast of the piece. If you don't have a lens hood at least shade the top of the lens with your hand.

 

[billooms]

I've been using the cube box approach for many years, but as John mentioned they make everything look flat because the light is too diffused.

Go back and read Ed Kelle's article in the last issue of AW. I just read it again a few days ago and ordered one of the daylight fluorescent lights (Adorama #FPSSBK). UPS just delivered it yesterday, so I'll play with it later today.

I'll keep my cube frame, but replace the sides with some of that translucent white table cloth.

 

[Patrick Miller]

gradient background

I purchased a black/white gradient background sheet to use in my similar light box and really like how the photos come out. I actually cost more than the box and lights but gives a nice background choice that can be used to enhance both light or dark subjects. I imagine good photo editing software might accomplish the same thing but I'm not willing to invest the time to learn. Careful with the sheet. Mine is a heavy plastic (shipped rolled) and the gradient color will scratch.

 

[john lucas]

I don't use a light tent when I teach. I use what is better described as a light tunnel. 3 Panels made from PVC and white cloth. 2 sides and a top. What that allows me to do is use a background that is longer. This makes it easy to get a graduated background look by simply shading the background, putting it further away from the subject, or both.
By creating your own graduated background you have much more control over it. You can make it lighter, darker, or change where the "horizon line" is by moving where the shadow begin.
The Graduated backgrounds are fairly easy to scratch and eventually it ruins them because the scratches show up. Using seamless paper and creating the fade with shadows or falloff allows you to tear off the dirty or worn areas and keep using the new paper.

 

[John Torchick]

John, have you considered doing a tutorial on photography for the forum? Do you have one on YouTube?

 

[john lucas]

John I've considered it and probably will some day. Maybe this winter when it's too cold to be in the shop.

 

[Robert Manning]

I have not posted here in a while but I love photography as much as woodturning.

Odie, John Lucas is giving you good advice. That's a nice light John.

I have used clamp lights with 23w fluorescents and they work OK too. I ganged two of them when I shot Marinara but it would be easier with the light John uses since I have to get my lights closer to the subject.

My gradated background is not big enough for this 25" piece so I just cropped part of it out of the shot so I could show some nice background on the right side. This allowed a clamp to hold the piece upright as it has no foot.

Months later, to my surprise, the shot was published on the cover of the Orange County Woodworking Exhibition catalog. I was happy with the lighting and color, but I didn't pay enough attention to the focus. So when the publisher enlarged the image, the lack of depth of field was apparent. This was one of those cases where I could have stopped down more and suffered with diffraction, but who's to say, it still made a great cover.

Unfortunately my Nikon D5000 was destroyed. I was warned not to take my camera on my thousand mile dirt bike adventure last month around central Baja, but how could I not take it into such a beautiful landscape.

I hanged my waist pack on the back fender and forgot it was there when I jumped on the bike to locate friends the first evening. The small pack with camera swung under the rear fender and was pounded by the knobby tire.

Anyway, attached is a shot of my lighting setup and my published photo.

 

[John Torchick]

The small pack with camera swung under the rear fender and was pounded by the knobby tire.

Yep, the tires always win. I found that cell phones and swimming pools don't mix, either.

 

[john lucas]

Rob Nice photo. One tip when ganging lights. Hang a white cloth in front of them or even over them if they aren't too hot. This makes the shadow more of a single shadow with slightly softer edges. In your photo there is a double edge to the shadow. Probably no one but a photographer would notice that however. I have used as many as 4 lights to light larger pieces and I put a panel in front of them and the object see them as one big light.

 

[John Torchick]

John, you speak of putting a cloth in front of the light is it's not too hot. In your experience, how do the new fluorescent "curly Q" bulbs work in photography?
Robert, my complements on a great turning piece.

 

[Faust M. Ruggiero]

John,
The article you wrote on photographing glossy pieces surely helped me. I posted a few pieces on another site today and actually credited your instructions with allowing me to take a decent photo. Thanks,
faust

 

[Robert Manning]

Robert, my complements on a great turning piece.

Thanks, John!!

Ray Leier gave Marinara first place in the master's division at the OC Woodworking Exhibition.

 

[john lucas]

John The new FLD's work pretty good but you have to buy the ones that tell you they are 5500 K and ideally have a CRI rating of 90 or above. Most of the lights you find won't have the CRI rating. www.Alzo.com has the lights as well as www.adorama.com
don't use the ones listed as daylight that you find in Lowes or other box stores are not photographically daylight balanced. That's why you need to make sure they say 5500K at the very least. If they also list a CRI index then your ahead of the game.
CRI rating is how accurate the color is. Well they lie with that also. Every other style of light that I've purchase over the years that had a CRI of 90 or above were accurate enough to have correct color with slide films. All of the FLD's that's I've purchased are not dead on color wise. The good ones are close enought that minor color correcting in your software is all it takes.

 

[odie]

Howdy to all, and thanks to everyone who responded so far..........

I was hoping to connect with someone who is currently using, or has used the setup I purchased......no luck, so far........but, if someone is using these lights and tent, I'm still interested in hearing your comments, and if possible, seeing some of your photo examples, too!

Actually, I've been very happy with the photos I've been taking lately, since purchasing the Canon PS95 camera.....the camera has been a dream for me, the non-photographer. The only thing that I'm trying to improve is the "hot spots" in my photos. Color and depth of field hasn't been perfect on every shot, but some are superb......still working on it.

The lighting I've been using is two or three incandescent bulbs and one circular fluorescent bulb......all with white paper covers. The new continuous tungsten lights haven't arrived yet, but they are already paid for......so, will be doing some experimenting with them. I still have all my old lights, so it's my plan to come up with some way to achieve goals with combinations of all lights and positioning.

The FLD, or new curly Q lights are something I have not tried to date. Thanks for reminding me that this is also something that presents an option for experimentation.

Although I have yet to use the photo tent, I will experiment with it and all the available lighting when everything is here. As I said, I'm not an expert photographer, but I do have eyes and a sense of visual appreciation. I intend to find the right combinations of lights and camera settings to a specific need.......and, should be able to duplicate that with repeatability. I may not be the experienced photographer as some here, but my philosophy is entirely different than the requirements of those who are. As long as I can get good color, clarity, reasonable depth of field, and eliminate or subdue the "hot spots".......I will have photos that will show my turnings well to a prospective buyer.

ooc

 

[john lucas]

Well Odie first of all don't mix your lighting. You say you incandescent and circlular flourescent. The incandescent light is yellow (compared to daylight or 5500K) and the flourescent is usally but not always green. This will throw off your color. The FLD's that I talked about are basically flourescent but they are balanced for daylight or 5500K. Your cameras auto white balance can't correct for two different light sources and the manual white balance settings have either Tungsten or Flourescent settings, neither of which will match both lights.
One reason I like daylight balanced bulbs is that most digital cameras that I've played with will give a much better color balance when used with these lamps and the Auto White balance setting that many cameras default to. Of course if you use the daylight white balance setting your better off.
Hot spots are always a challenge. There are lots of ways to get around them. Post a photo of your piece and then back off and post a photo of your light set up and I can help you. This goes for anybody. I photographed art work for over 100 artist almost daily for 26 years. I've learned a few tricks.
The little light set up you want to know about works pretty decent for just shooting stuff to sell on ebay. They are very low power and will require long exposures so you need a good solid tripod that isn't set up on carpet. They are also too low. I start my lighting with a light up above and to one side to light 2 panels of the cube. This gives a much more pleasing light that will give some shape or 3 dimensionality to the piece. the two little lights that come with the cube produce a very flat lighting. Not bad for lighting that watch you want to sell but sucks for showing off texture in a bowl.

 

[Robert Manning]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDV1D3vod3U

Try setting custom white balance with the lights you are using.

 

[john lucas]

A custom white balance may get you close depending a great deal on what the one off color light is doing. If you've ever tried to correct for this in the color darkroom you know what I'm talking about. You correct for the green cast and now you have magenta shadows or it throws the skin tone off or some other problem. The same is true with digital printing or color correction. Your much better off to use only one color of light. Then the custom white balance works quite well.

 

[john lucas]

Odie looking back at those lights. They say 50 watt. I'll bet you money they don't put out as much light as your 25 watt refrigerator bulb. I also don't understand why they need a UV filter. If they are 5100 K if anything they need a blue filter to raise them to 5500 although in reality you aren't going to see 400K difference on many monitors.
still the worst problem from my standpoint is simply how low they are. I'm guessing they aim them up so that it more or less lights the cube as evenly as possible. This is very flat lighting but somewhat forgiving.
I also forgot to mention that shooting through a light tent eats up another F stop of light. so you start with lights that are way too weak and then have to at least double the exposure time to compensate for the light loss going through the cube. Now your getting into seriously long exposure times.

 

[odie]

Odie looking back at those lights. They say 50 watt. I'll bet you money they don't put out as much light as your 25 watt refrigerator bulb. I also don't understand why they need a UV filter. If they are 5100 K if anything they need a blue filter to raise them to 5500 although in reality you aren't going to see 400K difference on many monitors.
still the worst problem from my standpoint is simply how low they are. I'm guessing they aim them up so that it more or less lights the cube as evenly as possible. This is very flat lighting but somewhat forgiving.
I also forgot to mention that shooting through a light tent eats up another F stop of light. so you start with lights that are way too weak and then have to at least double the exposure time to compensate for the light loss going through the cube. Now your getting into seriously long exposure times.

I don't know what to expect, but I'm running on the assumption that the cube, or tent sits on the same surface as the lights do. Maybe the lights are supposed to be positioned in front and not intended to penetrate the tent itself, but shine directly on the object being photographed..... I can find out in short order by practical example......

Lights are not here yet, so I'll have to just experiment when everything is here........

Still hoping to connect with someone who has used this set-up.......

I'm running on the assumption the tent will subdue the hot spots. The paper in front of the lights I've been using up to this point, does work for that purpose, but not to the degree that I'd like. Without the paper in front of the lights, the hot spots are much worse.

Thanks for your input, John........ Who knows......I'm not disputing any information you are putting forth, but the lights are already a done deal, so I'll just have to try them out. They could be completely worthless......or, I may find they are helpful. The information I have on them is they are intended specifically for small objects being photographed.......just how small is small?......don't know yet. We might be talking wristwatches, and not 16" bowls..........

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

Odie,

I have been out of town for about a week and catching up on the the posts here (my dad was in the hospital and thankfully he is now doing fine, but we nearly lost him when his Pacemaker malfunctioned). I checked out the links to Choice Woods and was about to give my thoughts when I saw that John Lucas said exactly what I was thinking.

Like John, I think that the tent and sweeps are OK, although I am not personally a fan of light tents for shooting woodturnings. I feel like they are just too restrictive. I also agree about the lights being a joke. Just for comparison, I have a pair of 500W tungsten photo hot lights with a color temperature of 4800K -- that is ten times the power of the little lights that Choice Woods has. And, even with the total 1000 watts of lighting, the exposure time is in the neighborhood of one second at ISO 100 and an aperture of f/13 and 100 mm focal length.

John also commented about mixed lighting and he is spot on -- listen to what he says. Mixed lighting is a nightmare and cannot be fixed in post processing. The reason that it can't be fixed in post processing is that the lighting from different sources is not the same at any two places. Shadows are the worst problem areas because one of the lighting sources will be much more dominant that the other and you will wind up with very strange colors like green or orange or blue shadows when you try to balance on the highlights or mid tones.

My set up for shooting woodturnings usually consists of my two hot lights shooting into a pair of umbrellas -- the light stands hold both the lights and the umbrellas. I usually use a neutral or graduated sweep for the background -- a graduated sweep is nice because it allows a more compact set up. Finally, I will have some "light modifiers" -- those are just black or white cards or a piece of cardboard with aluminum foil over it. These help to either brighten some areas, or soften or increase shadows. I set my camera on a tripod about ten feet from the object being photographed. If you do any post processing then one more thing is essential -- something to set the white balance. It is really hard to beat a sheet of plain old cheap copier paper. Whatever you use, be sure not to use ink jet paper -- especially do not use the bright white ink jet paper because it has UV brighteners which will screw up the white balance royally.

 

[odie]

Howdy Bill.........

Sometimes, all that technical knowledge just gets in the way of progress.........Heh,heh,heh........

Here's a little wake up call:

The two incandescent bulbs I've been using are 40w and 60w. I don't see where the little circular fluorescent bulb is marked, but it is 9" in diameter and are typically around 25-35 watts, from what I can see.......... If you'll check out my gallery, you'll see it's just not terribly important to have 1000w of lighting to get reasonable photography done. My purpose is to do that, and not worry much about technical photographic perfection.......I think my current photos do exactly that, but I'm certainly aware that the hot spots can be improved upon. (My attitudes on absolute perfection in bowl turning is another thing entirely! )

It just doesn't seem that the two replacement 50w lamps I ordered are going to be as bad as you and John are indicating......but, who knows......maybe they won't work at all.

In all honestly, I probably wouldn't have ordered them if I had inquired first......but, they are paid for and in transit. Heck.......might as well give them a try.......

later........

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

Howdy Bill.........

Sometimes, all that technical knowledge just gets in the way of progress.........Heh,heh,heh........

.... If you'll check out my gallery, you'll see it's just not terribly important to have 1000w of lighting to get reasonable photography done.

Bottom line -- if you are happy with what you've got then that is all that matters. I just assumed that you wanted to take a step up in getting better images. After all, you did ask for feedback. Well OK, I admit that you really wanted feedback on how to use what you got rather than what you didn't get.

I think that John's suggestions for lighting are very good. The lighting should be through the sides and/or top of the tent, but generally not through the front opening. Using the light tent could be frustrating, but if you stick with it and experiment around then you can get a feel for things that you can do to create shadows and accentuate lighting where desired by using reflectors, bounce cards, and gobos (basically a black card to block or absorb light).

Regarding the amount of light needed, 1000W certainly isn't essential -- it could be much less, one could use a couple candles if willing to wait long enough for the exposure. Light may not be everything, but it certainly is a contender for the top honors. Having lots of light gives you much more flexibility in setting the other exposure parameters -- aperture, ISO speed, and shutter speed.

I mentioned that I set my camera's aperture to f/13 which means that it is stopped way down and not letting much light hit the sensor. This might seem counter-intuitive, but the purpose for that and the focal length of the lens and the shooting distance is that it results in sufficient depth of field so that the entire piece will be in reasonable focus and will have a perspective comparable to what we would see if viewed directly by our eyes. When the focal length and shooting distance are too short or too long it can result in either "big nose" or "flat face" appearance. Lots of light also enables one to use the lowest ISO setting which means the least amount of noise/grain in the image.

You have a very fine camera in the Canon PowerShot 95. The things that I like the best are the optical zoom to 105 mm FL and the ability to record the RAW image data. Canon also includes software with the camera to process the RAW image data so that you do not need to buy any other software. If you are still using full auto to take pictures, I encourage you to try the more creative options and I think that you will be impressed with the things that the camera can do when you are in charge of what it does.

BTW, I'm not sure that I've ever encountered a situation where lack of knowledge got us anywhere, but that is another topic for philosophical discussion.

 

[odie]

Bottom line -- if you are happy with what you've got then that is all that matters. I just assumed that you wanted to take a step up in getting better images. After all, you did ask for feedback. Well OK, I admit that you really wanted feedback on how to use what you got rather than what you didn't get.

I think that John's suggestions for lighting are very good. The lighting should be through the sides and/or top of the tent, but generally not through the front opening. Using the light tent could be frustrating, but if you stick with it and experiment around then you can get a feel for things that you can do to create shadows and accentuate lighting where desired by using reflectors, bounce cards, and gobos (basically a black card to block or absorb light).

Regarding the amount of light needed, 1000W certainly isn't essential -- it could be much less, one could use a couple candles if willing to wait long enough for the exposure. Light may not be everything, but it certainly is a contender for the top honors. Having lots of light gives you much more flexibility in setting the other exposure parameters -- aperture, ISO speed, and shutter speed.

I mentioned that I set my camera's aperture to f/13 which means that it is stopped way down and not letting much light hit the sensor. This might seem counter-intuitive, but the purpose for that and the focal length of the lens and the shooting distance is that it results in sufficient depth of field so that the entire piece will be in reasonable focus and will have a perspective comparable to what we would see if viewed directly by our eyes. When the focal length and shooting distance are too short or too long it can result in either "big nose" or "flat face" appearance. Lots of light also enables one to use the lowest ISO setting which means the least amount of noise/grain in the image.

You have a very fine camera in the Canon PowerShot 95. The things that I like the best are the optical zoom to 105 mm FL and the ability to record the RAW image data. Canon also includes software with the camera to process the RAW image data so that you do not need to buy any other software. If you are still using full auto to take pictures, I encourage you to try the more creative options and I think that you will be impressed with the things that the camera can do when you are in charge of what it does.

BTW, I'm not sure that I've ever encountered a situation where lack of knowledge got us anywhere, but that is another topic for philosophical discussion.

OK, thanks for that, Bill.........

I'm on a path that satisfies my needs, or my perception of what my needs should be......and, it's my belief that a perfect photograph isn't what a buyer cares about......and, in some cases, I've seen perfect photos that have looked "over-done". (Not sure if "over-done" correctly expresses my thought.....but, it's close.) In the past, prospective customers had my turnings in their physical presence, or in their hands........ and my work could speak for itself. I am contemplating doing some selling through photographs, but my personal philosophy revolves around just what it is that a customer perceives, and reaches for his/her money........but, all that could be a thread in itself, too!

About that last sentence in your post...... Ever heard the term "educated idiot"?

In our world, we do have a problem with processing voluminous input of knowledge for practical application. In some cases, we have "knowledge" that is accepted as fact, that might not be so. There is another term, "horse sense", that fits somewhere into the theoretical parameters of the root suggestion that over-processing of raw information (or misinformation) is not something that benefits mankind, but serves to dilute, and sometimes completely stifle the possibilities. I'm not one who is sold on the idea that our "computer age" is helping the human experience. There are some aspects of it that have helped me immensely in my personal life........but, just look around us and see how people are being manipulated these days..........

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

... Ever heard the term "educated idiot"?...

Can't say that I have. Would it be an improvement over the plain vanilla variety?

I think that I get your drift -- a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing given the right (or wrong) circumstances.

This reminds me of a definition that I heard about various college degrees -- BS = bull****, MS = more the same, and PhD = piled higher and deeper. As one advances in education, the more specialized the education becomes or phrased another way, we learn more and more about less and less until we finally reach the pinnacle of knowing everything there is to know about nothing.

I guess that I need to admit that my work has not always been "down to earth" ... well, if you are working on putting something in orbit then you really don't want it to be down to earth.

 

[davidwalser]

Lady Bracknell once said...

Lady Bracknell: “I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound...."

 

[Bill Boehme]

Might as well continue on with the rest of the line ...
"Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did it would prove a serious threat to the upper classes, and probably lead ot acts of violence in Grosvenor Square."

 

[john lucas]

Odie I think the lights can be used. Were being nitpicky . If the lights are actually on color and you shine them kind of up toward the top of each side panel you should get an acceptable image. You will have long exposures but unless they are very long it should not be a problem.
If the piece looks too flat from the very even lighting that shining 2 lights of the same power into the box causes it can be cured. You can move one light further away which may give you a little more shadow on one side. You can also use what we call negative lighting. Place a black card on one side and it will remove some light from that side creating more ratio. There are lots of tricks to make that system work better but I'll bet you get a decent photo using them. Just maybe not as good as it could be.

 

[odie]

Odie I think the lights can be used. Were being nitpicky . If the lights are actually on color and you shine them kind of up toward the top of each side panel you should get an acceptable image. You will have long exposures but unless they are very long it should not be a problem.
If the piece looks too flat from the very even lighting that shining 2 lights of the same power into the box causes it can be cured. You can move one light further away which may give you a little more shadow on one side. You can also use what we call negative lighting. Place a black card on one side and it will remove some light from that side creating more ratio. There are lots of tricks to make that system work better but I'll bet you get a decent photo using them. Just maybe not as good as it could be.

Thanks very much, John........

Lights didn't show up today either......but, I'll try some of your tricks when they do. I imagine there will be quite a bit of experimenting.

I've got several new bowls that need photographing......and, I've been putting it off to try out the tent and new lights.......I hate waiting! I'm also a terrible procrastinator at times, too.......but, waiting and procrastinating are two entirely different things!

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

Looking at the pictures of the lights, they seem to be very similar to the halogen track lights that I have in the ceiling of my shop. They generally come as either flood or spot lighting. For your use, the floods would probably be a bit better. In any event, they should be fairly close to the tent -- maybe about 18 inches away. Light falls off approximately as the square of the distance so putting the lights close will give roughly the same amount of light as much more powerful lights that are located somewhat further away. Also, having the lights really close might help to improve the flat lighting situation that occurs with light tents.

Somebody mentioned using CFL's. A lot of people have tried them and like them. You definitely get much more light output per watt than you do with incandescent lighting. Incandescent (AKA, tungsten) lights are only about 10% efficient and the rest goes into generating invisible infrared light -- sometimes known as heat. CFL's, by comparison have an efficiency in the neighborhood of 40%. For the time being, I would stay away from LED lights because they have more problems than benefits when it comes to photography.

I don't like using CFL's for photographing turnings because their light output has a lot of spectral gaps and while it is not always a big deal, sometimes these gaps in color output can leave the photo of a turning looking drab while viewing it under natural lighting reveals a much more vibrant looking piece. Here is a chart that shows a representative example of fluorescent lighting output and the gaps in its color output.



By comparison, incandescent lighting, despite its inefficiency, does have a continuous spectral output which is weighted towards to red end of the spectrum as shown in the chart below.



BTW, I'm thinking of starting a procrastinator's club, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

[AlanZ]

You've gotten some good advice... folks are trying to make it easy for you to get good results.

In the hands of very experienced photographers, a penlight could provide anything from directional to shadowless lighting. (For those interested, research painting with light)

So, pretty much any light, of any power will do (provided you have a tripod and a camera capable of long or bulb exposures). The higher output lights give you more flexibility.

I've switched over to CFLs and LED lighting... they've come a long way and prices have come down to where mere mortals can afford them.

 

[john lucas]

Bill That's why I recommend the lights I do. I've done the testing on them and they are close enough in color to work quite well. As you stated they do have gaps in the spectrum which is probably why they shoot a little green but it's so minor no one but Pro's would notice.
It's been interesting testing them. The lights sold as professional lights that state outrageous wattage claims are good for color but their actual light output measured from 8 feet away without a reflector is only marginally better than they 45 or 85 watt they state. However the cheap lights that I purchased from the grocery store were almost 3 times what they rating is. So a 35 watt cheap bulb puts out almost as much as a 100 watt incandescent. The 45 watt "professional" bulb puts out maybe 60 watt equivalent instead of the 300 they claim. Interesting Huh.
Again power is not necessary unless your shooting hand held or models that move. The exposures although quite long are still quite acceptable for todays digital.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Bill That's why I recommend the lights I do. I've done the testing on them and they are close enough in color to work quite well. As you stated they do have gaps in the spectrum which is probably why they shoot a little green but it's so minor no one but Pro's would notice.
It's been interesting testing them. The lights sold as professional lights that state outrageous wattage claims are good for color but their actual light output measured from 8 feet away without a reflector is only marginally better than they 45 or 85 watt they state. However the cheap lights that I purchased from the grocery store were almost 3 times what they rating is. So a 35 watt cheap bulb puts out almost as much as a 100 watt incandescent. The 45 watt "professional" bulb puts out maybe 60 watt equivalent instead of the 300 they claim. Interesting Huh.
Again power is not necessary unless your shooting hand held or models that move. The exposures although quite long are still quite acceptable for todays digital.

The chart that I posted actually predates most CFL's and is primarily for the type of lighting used in office environments. I have heard that CFL's with a high CRI were much improved, but I didn't really know how much. I like using the 2700K CFL's for general room lighting in our home and have found that they do a very good job of matching the incandescent lights. I can even set my camera to get a custom WB with this particular mixed lighting without getting ugly green shadows or funny skin tones.

I think that I can answer your question about the differences in actual light output.The phosphors in the cheap grocery store lights are chosen to maximize light output without much regard to having a good CRI while the high quality lights use a blend of phosphors for the most accurate color output while intensity of lighting is a secondary consideration.

There are two wattage numbers often stated on CFL's -- one is the actual power drawn and the other is the supposed equivalent compared to incandescent lights. I wish that they would just forget about the second one since it doesn't seem to be too dependable anyway.

I checked to see what Wikipedia had to say on the subject and found this which basically confirms what I was thinking:

The peak of the luminosity function is at 555 nm (green); the eye's visual system is more sensitive to light of this wavelength than any other. For monochromatic light of this wavelength, the irradiance needed to make one lux is minimum, at 1.464 mW/m2. That is, one obtains 683.002 lux per W/m2 (or lumens per watt) at this wavelength. Other wavelengths of visible light produce fewer lumens per watt. The luminosity function falls to zero for wavelengths outside the visible spectrum.
For a light source with mixed wavelengths, the number of lumens per watt can be calculated by means of the luminosity function. In order to appear reasonably "white," a light source cannot consist solely of the green light to which the eye's visual photoreceptors are most sensitive, but must include a generous mixture of red and blue wavelengths to which they are much less sensitive.
This means that white (or whitish) light sources produce far fewer lumens per watt than the theoretical maximum of 683 lumens per watt. The ratio between the actual number of lumens per watt and the theoretical maximum is expressed as a percentage known as the luminous efficiency. For example, a typical incandescent light bulb has a luminous efficiency of only about 2%.
​

So, the bottom line is that per watt you can have good light or you can have bright light, but you can't have both.


Meters that measure lighting are designed to mimic the average human visual response to light intensity. Since our eyes are not all that sensitive to red and blue light, the meter response will indicate just as our eyes respond to light intensity although, in absolute terms, the emitted light would be much greater than that.

 

[hockenbery]

In the hands of very experienced photographers, a penlight could provide anything from directional to shadowless lighting. (For those interested, research painting with light)
.

This is a bit off topic but in 1972. I was using a Gerber plotter to draw maps on film. I wrote a program to generate computer instructions like
Set aperture, light on, light off, goto x,y which went on a tape the Gerber could read.

So I was photographing with light....... Ta Dah !!!!!


Al

 

[john lucas]

That was illuminating I think

 

[Gretch Flo]

professional Photography

I had a neighbor try to show me the ropes with raw/photo shop etc. Some of the things she changed, I couldn't see the difference. My brain doesn't think that way. I am wayyyyy to excepting things (except sharpness { a must}) Now, nuances on the surgery table are another thing..... Gonna go cut firewood (wood turning treasures are often found) in sunny, 63 deg weather, Gretch

 

[AlanZ]

Al,

These youngin's don't remember a time when we had to shovel coal into our computers...

 

[john lucas]

I'm still using an abacus and quite happy.

 

[hockenbery]

Al,

These youngin's don't remember a time when we had to shovel coal into our computers...

I've gotten a lot stronger Too. :<)

I used to need help moving an 8k disk platter.
Now I can lift 15-20 terabytes with my pinky.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I remember when we had a drum storage drive in one of the labs -- I think that it had something like an amazing 1 Megabyte storage capacity. It took a good sized forklift to move it out. I think that somebody carried its replacement in their pocket. We also had a multiple platter hard disk drive that was about the same size as a juke box.