how many lighting watts for a small studio (1-door garage)?

[drp]

hello,

i'm about to purchase a lighting setup and had a few questions i was hoping you guys could help me out with.

i have a very small studio space (1 door garage) that i'm trying to light up. in using an 8x10 camera w/packard and shooting at apertures such as f8, f11, f16.

about how much light is needed to do head and shoulder shots given this small space?

i'm still unsure if i need continuous light or flash. if i use continuous lighting, is one 1K continuous head enough as the key light for these apertures?

i'm planning on doing a 3 light setup. 1 for key, 1 for hair and/or fill, and one for a background.

is one 150w tungsten enough for hair/fill? and i'm also thinking about a 150w dedolight for the background or hair. what do you think of this setup? do i have enough juice for the lighting? if not, how much more do i need?

would it be better to get flash strobes instead for more power as i don't want hot lights that are 2k and above.

sorry for all the questions and i hope you all can help me with some.

thanks for any help!

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

That's not going to be enough for short exposures. If you have a pc socket on your camera you can use off camera flashes as cheap strobes and play with those. If you have the cash get a alien bee light kit or something like that. Three speeedlights and some umbrellas will do better than the hot lights your talking about. There is lots of DIY lighting stuff here http://www.diyphotography.net/

Hope it helps.
D.

 

[nemo999]

hello,

i'm about to purchase a lighting setup and had a few questions i was hoping you guys could help me out with.

i have a very small studio space (1 door garage) that i'm trying to light up. in using an 8x10 camera w/packard and shooting at apertures such as f8, f11, f16.

about how much light is needed to do head and shoulder shots given this small space?

i'm still unsure if i need continuous light or flash. if i use continuous lighting, is one 1K continuous head enough as the key light for these apertures?

i'm planning on doing a 3 light setup. 1 for key, 1 for hair and/or fill, and one for a background.

is one 150w tungsten enough for hair/fill? and i'm also thinking about a 150w dedolight for the background or hair. what do you think of this setup? do i have enough juice for the lighting? if not, how much more do i need?

would it be better to get flash strobes instead for more power as i don't want hot lights that are 2k and above.

sorry for all the questions and i hope you all can help me with some.

thanks for any help!

Studio strobes would be my advice if you can afford 3 heads of around 400 ws or bigger plus stands and attachments. However, a great deal can be achieved with cheap or improvised lighting - the cheapest lights of all are the halogen lights sold for use on building sites. They have ample power (1 kW) but need to be fired through a diffuser and are very hot in operation. Next cheapest would be the old-fashioned photo lights that have a reflector of about 12 inches and take a 500 W photopearl bulb - these too will need to be fired through a diffuser, you might find one of these lights with a snoot (long conical restrictor) which makes it much easier to control when used as a hair light. Basically, with 8x10" a lot of light is a good idea, and flash is even better at combatting subject and camera movement.

 

[drp]

ah ok. i see. it seems like strobes would be a better idea in this case then. the alienbees flashes are a good option.

but won't i only be able to obtain a max sync speed of 1/30th of a sec with a packard shutter? if that's the case, aren't hot lights just as effective for stopping motion???

 

[vdonovan]

I've been using a continuous flourescent softbox from Britex for portraits. I like it veeery much because a. I'm not so good with metering strobes, b. I use a really shallow focus plane and it's easier to see with continuous lights, c. they are not hot so subjects are comfortable, d. They're cheap.

I learned about them here:
http://www.studiolighting.net/continuous-portraits-with-britek-pro-5000-kit/

Here's a sample portrait:

 

[CBG]

If you are doing portraits, strobe makes it a lot easier to get blur free images. With an 8x10, extra watt seconds of power can really help, since with 8x10 you will be likely to be extending the lens a bit and getting into some bellows extension exposure compensation.

C

 

[drp]

wow, vdonovan. that looks pretty neat! if it has enough power for my required shooting (f8-f16 at iso 25-160), then i'm sold!!! thanks!

 

[nemo999]

ah ok. i see. it seems like strobes would be a better idea in this case then. the alienbees flashes are a good option.

but won't i only be able to obtain a max sync speed of 1/30th of a sec with a packard shutter? if that's the case, aren't hot lights just as effective for stopping motion???

A studio strobe will have a flash duration of around 1/400 or shorter at full power (even shorter at lower power settings). With a normal shutter, you would choose an exposure of probably 1/125 with strobe, which would stop any ambient light (from modelling lamps) from registering on the film. Even with the 1/30 of your packard shutter, the ambient light will probably be 3 or 4 stops underexposed, so that the image is created almost exclusively by the flash and the flash duration is effectively the exposure time.

 

[Frank Szabo]

ah ok. i see. it seems like strobes would be a better idea in this case then. the alienbees flashes are a good option.

but won't i only be able to obtain a max sync speed of 1/30th of a sec with a packard shutter? if that's the case, aren't hot lights just as effective for stopping motion???

If you get continuous lighting bright enough to stop motion, you'll be making the session extremely uncomfortable for your model/subject.

With the 'momentary' pin in place, the Packard acts just like a regular leaf shutter (albeit 1/15th - 1/30th) and fires the flash only when the shutter's blades are fully open. The flash duration then effectively becomes your shutter speed.

A bit of caution, however - the Packard has an extremely slow speed and will pick up modeling lamp leftovers. Even though you'll want the lights high for focusing, back them off before exposure - view cameras eat lots of light for us blind old humans to be able to bring them to focus.

If the wallet can stand it, check into a Speedotron 800w/s unit and heads, or for a little less expensive option, check out Novatron.

One last thing - if you do go with a flash rig of any sort, check the trigger voltage to make sure you'll not be overloading the camera's circuitry. While the LF's shutter is mechanical and can take anything you can throw at it, some cameras specifically say not to use a flash unit with a trigger voltage over 5 volts.

I occasionally use a Canon 30D instead of the non-available Polaroid film to check lighting and comp. My large power pack (4803 Speedotron) has 80 volts in the trigger circuit and this would fry the Canon. I use Pocket Wizards (a very good remote RF flash trigger) to get around that.

Enjoy -

Frank

 

[vet173]

vdonavon has the answer. Will the flash stop action better,yes. Will it give you the wrap around quality of continous lighting, no. A flash bulb will have better quality of light than a strobe. I didn't say a strobe was no good. ( can't, I have too much in a system myself ) More to it than just how many stops you can grab.

 

[vdonovan]

The Britek lights are color-adjusted flourescents, so they are not hot. My subjects are quite comfortable, even with the lights very close.

 

[jerry lebens]

Honestly, I think you'll struggle to get enough depth of field using continuous fluorescent (or tungsten lighting). To produce portraits you will need to diffuse your lights and the build up of heat from tungsten would be unbearable ; fluorescent would be better (and easier to diffuse) but I doubt that they'll give you the out and out power you need to work at f/11.

I'd guess that you'll need at least one 1000w/s of diffused flash. Most flash heads have modeling lights for focussing but, if the modeling lights aren't strong enough, you can always measure the focus point in advance and use a piece of knotted string to confirm that the model is the correct distance from the camera. Alternatively, some LF photographers used a 'charlie bar' - a horizontal bar, just out of sight of the camera. Focus on the bar in advance and ask the model to step forward so they can just feel it pressing against their chest. With enough dof either method will ensure that the model is in focus without having to do it visually in poor light. I'll leave you to guess why it was called a 'charlie bar'...

I don't know what the situation is in the US but in the UK it's actually quite cheap to buy the enormous 'overpowered' flash units that pro's used back in the days of LF because nobody wants them anymore. I recently bought a huge 5000w/s power pack with a 5 ft x 4 ft diffused light source for the equivalent of $400.

Regarding vet173's thoughts regarding quality of light. I disagree. The factors affecting the quality of light from a source are a) degree of diffusion b) size of source relative to subject. Continuous light doesn't wrap around 'more' than flash - if it did then continuous light wouldn't be obeying the laws of physics - it all depends on the degree of diffusion and the size of source relative to subject.
At a guess he may be confusing the slightly different quality you get between pearlised bulbs and electronic flash guns. Pearlised bulbs give a slightly softer effect to electronic flash guns because they're physically bigger than an un-diffused electronic flash tube. If you diffuse flash, therefore enlarging the size of the source, it has precisely the same qualities as a continuous pearlised bulb. Equally, if you remove the pearlised coating to a continuous bulb, making it relatively smaller, it looks the same as un-diffused flash.

Jerry Lebens

 

[PanaDP]

You definitely want strobes. I checked in my american cinematographer manual and to get an f16 at 1/50th on 100 speed film you're looking at about 3250 footcandles. That's a 5k tungsten fresnel half-spotted about 10' from the sitter. Not exactly comfortable for more than a few minutes.

 

[2F/2F]

For an example from the last time I shot a person in studio with 4x5 (not too long ago): Using a 1K M-R spotlight about 4 feet from the subject and a 1K M-R Softlite for a fill, using 400 film at effective f/16, I got exposures of '2 to '4. I took four shots. One of them was sharp enough for me to blow up 2x digaonally to an 8x10, and the rest had bad-looking motion blur, even when the subject was trying to stand still. This is with a 400 film, mind you. You quite simply need to throw a ton of light to work with hot lights and living subjects. You need high powered lights, and/or many many lights. I would highly prefer to use 4K or 8K lights for these situations, and double them up, even.

But nothing is ideal. You gots what you gots, and you gots to make do. To get enough light at home, you will likely pop your breakers. For a home studio-type thingy, flash has so many advantages, especially when it comes to size, safety, and comfort. From my experience, I would say that a 1000Ws pack split to two heads will fairly easily get you those apertures IF you get the lights good and close. Don't be afraid of getting your lights very close to the subject. This is a tendency that we all probably have out of respect or our subjects. I usually put mine right outside the frames of the composition unless I want the light to be coming from a smaller (thus harsher) source, in which case I will move them back. I am a fan of Dynalites, personally, but anything that works will work!

Fluorescents are fine for some things, but they are rather limiting in that they inherently provide diffuse, flat light. What I really want is something that starts with a miniature sun: a plain bare bulb that I can modify to suit my needs for the shoot. It will let you do whatever you want in whatever situation. Whoever said you need to use diffuse light to make a portrait is telling you what they think your standard portrait should look like. I hope you care enough to not make your portraits by commonly thrown about formulas and rules. What you really want is the ability to tailor the quality of light to serve your concept, not quote-unquote good portrait lighting (AKA Sears Portrait Studio Deluxe Cardboard Cutout One-Size Fits All Lighting). Personally, I use diffusion less often than any other modifier. I most often use a bounce (AKA reflection) if I want a "flattering" look. More often than not, I am just using bare bulbs and various reflector dishes and grids. This is beside the point, however. The point is that for a basic lighting setup, you probably want something versatile, not just a bank of soft fluorescent light for all purposes. You can always make harsh light softer, but it is harder, if not impossible in many cases, to go the other way.

As for the qualities of flash vs. tungsten lights....there is a lot of urban myth. Most basically: Light is light (is light is light). The differences are duration, color of light, and intensity of light, but not really quality of light. You can get nearly identical qualities of light from either hot lights or flash, so don't get obsessed with the idea that certain lights have a certain mystical look to them, etc. Just remember that tungsten lights are orange and flashes are white. That is the difference people are seeing (and it is slight), and either can be easily made to look like the other. Believe me...I had to make this godawful chart comparing a few handfuls of basic modifications of a Rembrandt lighting setup, and the whole point of the assignment was to encourage actual testing, dispel rumors, and prove that light is light is light. It all looks the same: like a person's face with a Rembrandt light on it. The quality changes based on how it is modified and where it is placed (and thus its relative size to the subject) way more than whether it is flash or tungsten. In short, you are not going to lose that magical hot light quality by using flashes. You just have to know what you are doing to some degree by using flashes instead of hot lights, and fiddle until you can manipulate the flashes to get "hot light look" you want.

 

[white.elephant]

As for the qualities of flash vs. tungsten lights....there is a lot of urban myth. Most basically: Light is light (is light is light). The differences are duration, color of light, and intensity of light, but not really quality of light.

I agree. Speaking as an old theatrical lighting designer here, the only difference anyone can ever really see in a photograph between various sources of light is this: Shadows from point source lights (light bulbs in whatever form they might take) diverge from the source (think vanishing points from your perspective drawing class). Shadows from the Sun are parallel. And the number of people who know this and look for it is very small, mainly people like me (grin). Most motion pictures or TV filmed outdoors augment the sun with artificial light and hardly anyone notices.

In other words, there is no difference anyone can reliably see as long as you color balance.

 

[resummerfield]

.......For a home studio-type thingy, flash has so many advantages, especially when it comes to size, safety, and comfort. From my experience, I would say that a 1000Ws pack split to two heads will fairly easily get you those apertures IF you get the lights good and close..........

2F / 2F offers some great advice. I do 8x10 portraits, using a Packard shutter as well as conventional lenses, and I’ve used both “hot” lights and strobe. I have found that tungsten lights make too much heat, and require slow shutter speeds which result in an occasional blur. My favorite setup is with two 2400ws packs and 3 or 4 heads, but I could easily work with only one pack. Check on used equipment—Speedotron is a great value.

 

[Edwardv]

I am afraid to ask the price.

http://www.maccam.tv/photonbeard.html

 

[donbga]

hello,

i'm about to purchase a lighting setup and had a few questions i was hoping you guys could help me out with.

i have a very small studio space (1 door garage) that I'm trying to light up. in using an 8x10 camera w/packard and shooting at apertures such as F, F, F.

about how much light is needed to do head and shoulder shots given this small space?

i'm still unsure if i need continuous light or flash. if i use continuous lighting, is one K continuous head enough as the key light for these apertures?

I'm planning on doing a 3 light setup. 1 for key, 1 for hair and/or fill, and one for a background.

is one 150w tungsten enough for hair/fill? and i'm also thinking about a 150w dedolight for the background or hair. what do you think of this setup? do i have enough juice for the lighting? if not, how much more do i need?

would it be better to get flash strobes instead for more power as i don't want hot lights that are 2k and above.

sorry for all the questions and i hope you all can help me with some.

thanks for any help!

You might want to consider the Calumet Genesis 400 monolight kits. 2 true 400 watt-light second monolights with stands and reflectors. You can pickup a Genesis 200 for hair light. These are very nice affordable monolight units with variable light output. The color temp stays very consistent through the power range.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?ac.u...&query=genisis

I think the Calumet Genesis offer an outstanding value for a small studio setup. The OEM is unknown but are rumored to be from an Asian source. Calumet offers good prices on light modifiers for the Genesis line at reasonable prices.

In my opinion the Genesis series light are a much better value than Alien Bees or other comparable monolights, though the AB remote triggers are a good value.

BTW, the 400 WS heads will give you enough light to shoot at apertures you mentioned.

 

[monkeykoder]

I wonder if anyone buys the individual heads. It seems each head costs exactly the same as the corresponding kit which seems to be a great value.

 

[Jim Noel]

It is not a matter of quantity, but quality of light. Harsh, contrast strobes leave me wanting. I prefer nice enveloping light, regardless of intensity.

 

[Early Riser]

It is not a matter of quantity, but quality of light. Harsh, contrast strobes leave me wanting. I prefer nice enveloping light, regardless of intensity.

You can take the harshest point light source and soften it into a broad even light if you know what you're doing. Almost all light sources except florescent are point sources. They are either diffused, bounced, focused, etc in order to shape them into the light type you need.

The advantage of using strobe for portraiture is obvious, it allows your subject the ability to move, and that imparts a far greater sense of animation in a portrait.

 

[2F/2F]

It is not a matter of quantity, but quality of light. Harsh, contrast strobes leave me wanting. I prefer nice enveloping light, regardless of intensity.

Strobes inherently give less contrast than hot lamps, so this statement makes no sense to me. As for harshness, that has to do with the quality of light you create, not with flash vs. tungsten.

 

[PanaDP]

Strobes inherently give less contrast than hot lamps, so this statement makes no sense to me. As for harshness, that has to do with the quality of light you create, not with flash vs. tungsten.

Strobes inherently do nothing except produce light. They do not naturally produce high or low contrast, high-key or low-key. You create all of those properties. If you have trouble with strobes producing too-low contrast, you need to flag off the spill better; it's bouncing around your studio and lowering contrast.

 

[2F/2F]

Strobes inherently do nothing except produce light. They do not naturally produce high or low contrast, high-key or low-key. You create all of those properties. If you have trouble with strobes producing too-high contrast, you need to flag off the spill better; it's bouncing around your studio and lowering contrast.

The color of tungsten lamps makes them more contrasty than electronic flash. It is like using an orange filter on your lens. The difference is not major, but was stated in response to someone who claimed that electronic flash was more contrasty. See my previous post to see that we agree.

Also, I think you got something in your last sentence switched around.

 

[donbga]

Last week I had an opportunity to look an exhibit of Arnold Newman's work and of course his work was amazing. According to his long time assistant Gregory Heisler Arnold worked with very 'primitive' lighting. Very often a single tungsten photo flood and a white bed sheet as a reflector.

Heisler on the other hand primarily uses electronic flash for his work.

Look at both of their bodies of work and draw your own conclusions about which types of light has superior qualities.