Continuous Florescent Lighting

"Ali" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote:

>Just been looking around studio lighting and came across these Interfit
>cool-lite florescent light units.
>http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Lighitng/Product%20Pages/Super%20Cool-lite%205.php
>http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Lighitng/Product%20Pages/Prolite.php
>
>Anyone have any experience with florescent lighting, compared to studio
>flash?
>
>They have a cool operating temperature, equivalent to 900W power, long
>lasting bulbs, low price, etc. seem OK on paper, so am curious to know what
>the disadvantages are?


Continuous fluorescent lighting is about as "continuous" as painless
dentistry is "painless". In other words, somewhat.
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

"Ali" <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote in message
news:N42dnYgSv7VpNfvaRVnyiQA@pipex.net...
> Just been looking around studio lighting and came across these Interfit
> cool-lite florescent light units.
> http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Lighitng/Product%20Pages/Super%20C...-lite%2
> http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Lighitng/Product%20Pages/Prolite.php
>
> Anyone have any experience with florescent lighting, compared to studio
> flash?
>
> They have a cool operating temperature, equivalent to 900W power, long
> lasting bulbs, low price, etc. seem OK on paper, so am curious to know
> what the disadvantages are?

The concept of cheap, cool lights is tempting, to be sure but consider the
light output of these lamps... 100 - 150 watt max (incandescent
measurements) per lamp. I suppose with ISO 250,000 now available, using them
might become more practical as ISO speeds rise but at ISO 100 a portrait
will be in the region of 1/5th shutter speed with one lamp!

Close work like in a light tent they do better but this is the reverse of
what you want, isn't it?

I bought some 5000k 150 watt (incandescing equivalent) fluoro like these
lamps and made a soft box from them. Six lamps before it came near a
strobe's output but 600k difference in light when using a small flash as
well is noticeable... Even using 5300k in the camera is only barely
acceptable. You might find them OK.

You didn't say what use you intended them for. Forget them for portraiture
unless you are willing to go 100% fluorescent and dump flash. Otherwise like
I said, you might find them OK.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

Douglas wrote:
> "Ali" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:N42dnYgSv7VpNfvaRVnyiQA@pipex.net...
>> Just been looking around studio lighting and came across these Interfit
>> cool-lite florescent light units.
>> http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Lighitng/Product%20Pages/Super%20C...-lite%2
>> http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Lighitng/Product%20Pages/Prolite.php
>>
>> Anyone have any experience with florescent lighting, compared to studio
>> flash?
>>
>> They have a cool operating temperature, equivalent to 900W power, long
>> lasting bulbs, low price, etc. seem OK on paper, so am curious to know
>> what the disadvantages are?
>
> The concept of cheap, cool lights is tempting, to be sure but consider the
> light output of these lamps... 100 - 150 watt max (incandescent
> measurements) per lamp. I suppose with ISO 250,000 now available, using them
> might become more practical as ISO speeds rise but at ISO 100 a portrait
> will be in the region of 1/5th shutter speed with one lamp!
>
> Close work like in a light tent they do better but this is the reverse of
> what you want, isn't it?
>
> I bought some 5000k 150 watt (incandescing equivalent) fluoro like these
> lamps and made a soft box from them. Six lamps before it came near a
> strobe's output but 600k difference in light when using a small flash as
> well is noticeable... Even using 5300k in the camera is only barely
> acceptable. You might find them OK.
>
> You didn't say what use you intended them for. Forget them for portraiture
> unless you are willing to go 100% fluorescent and dump flash. Otherwise like
> I said, you might find them OK.
>
> Douglas
>
>
The total light output of 6 x 150 Watt Spiral Fluorescents is about
15,000 Lumens!!! That is a LOT of light.
At a distance of say 10 feet, the output of the units would be
equivalent to daylight illumination. Using the sunny sixteen rule, that
would be about 1/100 sec at f=16
My only caveat is that a color temperature of 5000K is a little on the
yellow side. 5500K is better.
Also the manufacturer does not mention the Color Rendition Index (CRI),
which is a VERY important parameter. It should be at least 90 and
preferably 93 or more.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:50:53 +0000, Ali wrote:

> Just been looking around studio lighting and came across these Interfit
> cool-lite florescent light units.
> http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Lighitng/Product%20Pages/Super%
20Cool-lite%205.php
> http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Lighitng/Product%20Pages/Prolite.php
>
> Anyone have any experience with florescent lighting, compared to studio
> flash?

Yes. As well as conventional tungsten "hot" lights.

> They have a cool operating temperature, equivalent to 900W power, long
> lasting bulbs, low price, etc. seem OK on paper, so am curious to know
> what the disadvantages are?

The primary disadvantage is subject or camera movement during exposures,
since your exposure times will usually have to be slower than 1/15 sec to
get a proper exposure with adequate depth of field. Using a tripod will
eliminate camera movement. And, if photographing people, most can hold
still for up to 1 sec with no problem. Small children excepted.

A word of advice: Don't use "auto" white balance or the presets for the
color temperature; use your camera's manual white balance feature before
each session to assure a correct color balance.

Stef
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

On Dec 18, 11:20 am, Peter Irwin <pir... RemoveThis @ktb.net> wrote:
> Ali <m... RemoveThis @privacy.net> wrote:
> > I must admit, I was wondering about power output @ ISO 100. However,
> > manufactueres are claiming that 24 Watts of florecent is the equivelant of
> > 100 Watts incandecent.
>
> I think manufacturers tend ot overstate "wattage equivalence" for
> compact fluorecents. It would be better to compare by lumens
> output.
>
> Ratings for 120v incandecent bulbs used in photography follow:
>
> 150 watt std frosted (2850k) - 2780 lumens (750 hours) - 18.5 lumens/watt
> 200 watt std frosted (2900k) - 3800 lumens (750 hours) -19 lumens/watt
>
> 250 watt 3200k lamp - 6500 lumens - (20 hours) - 26 lumens/watt
> 250 watt 3400k photoflood - 8500 lumens (3-4 hours) 34 lumens/watt
>
> 500 watt 3200k lamp - 13650 lumens - (60 hours) - 27 lumens/watt
> 500 watt 3400k photoflood - 17000 lumens - (6-7 hours) - 34 lumens/watt
>
> Peter.
> --
> pir... RemoveThis @ktb.net

I have been using Daylight Flourescent Bulbs for about 7 years doing
knife photography. This was long before the lights were of the kind
available today. Had to go to Home Depot and buy $20 apiece bulbs and
put them into a movie light bar. Now the light available have much
more power and ease of use with proper reflectors etc. Most of the
time my product photos inside a "tent" will give an exposure of 1/8
sec @ f3.1 100 ISO using Auto WB Nikon 995 Coolpix and the results are
just fine.

After reading the comments in this thrread, I decided to try a
"people" shot and dragged my wife off to my lair and did a H/S
portrait with one light and not reflector. A reflector of course would
improve the lighting but for the test it was not necessary.

100 ISO, Auto WB 1/15th Sec @ f 3.5 using Panasonic Lumix L1 50-100 mm
lens at 100mm handheld. On camera screen the image seemed light but
once in the computer it was quite good so camera screen can fool one.
A bit of adjustment. None of the auto features in Digital Image Pro 10
image editor were of any value. The one thing I found was that the
program showed the K temp to be 5700 which gave a tad of blue to the
skin tones and the blouse. Dropped the midtones into more yellow and
also a wee bit into the highlights and had quite an acceptable
portrait.

The light used is 26W CF about 75W equivalent. Thus the 900W bulbs are
12 X and would thus give much better shutter speeds when used for
portraits. One would have to test for full length and groups but one
would think the results should be fine.

As I recall, before he died, Monte Zucker was using Daylight
Flourescent bulbs when doing wedding portraiture which was giving
natural skin tone, good whites and full texture of the gown material.
I don't know the power of the bulbs being used.

Has anyone else made use of powerful DFL bulbs? Always interested to
learn of others work with this light source.
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

I must admit, I was wondering about power output @ ISO 100. However,
manufactueres are claiming that 24 Watts of florecent is the equivelant of
100 Watts incandecent. So, the 9 tube is the equivelant of 900 Watts
incandecent lighting. I'm not sure what the relationship is between watts
and watts/seconds which seems to be used with flash/strobes, but 900 watts
sounds like a fair bit. You're not the only person to mention this, but I
am suprised that they would give such a slow shutter speed at ISO 100.

When you say you used a 150 watt (incandecant equivalent), does that mean
that these 900 watt units would be 6 times more powerful that what you were
using?





"Douglas" <just.RemoveThis@the.group> wrote in message
news:fk6l4r$njb$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> The concept of cheap, cool lights is tempting, to be sure but consider the
> light output of these lamps... 100 - 150 watt max (incandescent
> measurements) per lamp. I suppose with ISO 250,000 now available, using
> them might become more practical as ISO speeds rise but at ISO 100 a
> portrait will be in the region of 1/5th shutter speed with one lamp!
>
> Close work like in a light tent they do better but this is the reverse of
> what you want, isn't it?
>
> I bought some 5000k 150 watt (incandescing equivalent) fluoro like these
> lamps and made a soft box from them. Six lamps before it came near a
> strobe's output but 600k difference in light when using a small flash as
> well is noticeable... Even using 5300k in the camera is only barely
> acceptable. You might find them OK.
>
> You didn't say what use you intended them for. Forget them for portraiture
> unless you are willing to go 100% fluorescent and dump flash. Otherwise
> like I said, you might find them OK.
>
> Douglas
>
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

I remember reading about this somewhere yesterday, that florescent lighting
has a discontinuous spectrum and that parts of the colour spectrum are
missing. Although, I have also heard that modern compact florescent lamps
have improved coatings to prevent this.

This is new to me, so have just been looking on the internet and found that
this:
http://www.healthgoods.com/Shopping/Conservation_Products/Full_Spectru...nergy_E

I very nearly didn't click on the link when I looked at the domain name, but
strangely enough it turned out to be a good basic guide. Looking at the
Color Rendering Index, (CRI), compact florescent lamps are capable of a high
CRI, which should give fairly accurate colour reproduction.

As Bob mentioned in an above post, the manufacturer didn't mention the Color
Rendition Index (CRI) of the lights, so would be interesting to find out. I
found this on their site, which mentions a CRI of 95, however this was
mentioned in an example, it doesn't specifically say that the bulbs they use
are:
http://www.interfitphotographic.com/Featured%20Product/Fluorescent%20l...ting%20




"Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4767046d$0$2491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> The problem then and now is that word "continuous" Continuous in one
> respect is great and that is one reason we liked them They did not flash,
> they just stayed on all the time. Those flashes do disrupt the flow of
> working with a subject and they tend to make the subject a little
> uncomfortable. But the other kind of continuous has not been solved.
> That is the light output of every florescent light I have ever seen is not
> continuous spectrum. That is there will be some colors that are very very
> strong, but then there will be colors close the them that are very very
> weak. They average out in color temperature, but many subjects,
> especially living ones, tend to react to specific wavelengths so the
> colors tend to get distorted even if the light itself looks white. Film
> reacts to specific colors as well. The effect is not predictable. Even
> when it looks good to you face to face, it did not end up that way on the
> film and there was no way to filter it out since different parts of the
> subject were reacting differently.
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

I really don't kwow what all the hubbub is about on this thread.
Professional television has been using fluoresecent light for years. Why
should anyone think that it wouldn't work with digital still photography?

A simple Google revealed this:

http://tinyurl.com/2xlz4w




On 12/18/07 12:59 PM, in article
a3561b2c-5a08-4079-aa29-6b7c2545d552 DeleteThis @d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "MurrayW"
<phymur DeleteThis @rogers.com> wrote:

> On Dec 18, 11:20 am, Peter Irwin <pir... DeleteThis @ktb.net> wrote:
>> Ali <m... DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote:
>>> I must admit, I was wondering about power output @ ISO 100. However,
>>> manufactueres are claiming that 24 Watts of florecent is the equivelant of
>>> 100 Watts incandecent.
>>
>> I think manufacturers tend ot overstate "wattage equivalence" for
>> compact fluorecents. It would be better to compare by lumens
>> output.
>>
>> Ratings for 120v incandecent bulbs used in photography follow:
>>
>> 150 watt std frosted (2850k) - 2780 lumens (750 hours) - 18.5 lumens/watt
>> 200 watt std frosted (2900k) - 3800 lumens (750 hours) -19 lumens/watt
>>
>> 250 watt 3200k lamp - 6500 lumens - (20 hours) - 26 lumens/watt
>> 250 watt 3400k photoflood - 8500 lumens (3-4 hours) 34 lumens/watt
>>
>> 500 watt 3200k lamp - 13650 lumens - (60 hours) - 27 lumens/watt
>> 500 watt 3400k photoflood - 17000 lumens - (6-7 hours) - 34 lumens/watt
>>
>> Peter.
>> --
>> pir... DeleteThis @ktb.net
>
> I have been using Daylight Flourescent Bulbs for about 7 years doing
> knife photography. This was long before the lights were of the kind
> available today. Had to go to Home Depot and buy $20 apiece bulbs and
> put them into a movie light bar. Now the light available have much
> more power and ease of use with proper reflectors etc. Most of the
> time my product photos inside a "tent" will give an exposure of 1/8
> sec @ f3.1 100 ISO using Auto WB Nikon 995 Coolpix and the results are
> just fine.
>
> After reading the comments in this thrread, I decided to try a
> "people" shot and dragged my wife off to my lair and did a H/S
> portrait with one light and not reflector. A reflector of course would
> improve the lighting but for the test it was not necessary.
>
> 100 ISO, Auto WB 1/15th Sec @ f 3.5 using Panasonic Lumix L1 50-100 mm
> lens at 100mm handheld. On camera screen the image seemed light but
> once in the computer it was quite good so camera screen can fool one.
> A bit of adjustment. None of the auto features in Digital Image Pro 10
> image editor were of any value. The one thing I found was that the
> program showed the K temp to be 5700 which gave a tad of blue to the
> skin tones and the blouse. Dropped the midtones into more yellow and
> also a wee bit into the highlights and had quite an acceptable
> portrait.
>
> The light used is 26W CF about 75W equivalent. Thus the 900W bulbs are
> 12 X and would thus give much better shutter speeds when used for
> portraits. One would have to test for full length and groups but one
> would think the results should be fine.
>
> As I recall, before he died, Monte Zucker was using Daylight
> Flourescent bulbs when doing wedding portraiture which was giving
> natural skin tone, good whites and full texture of the gown material.
> I don't know the power of the bulbs being used.
>
> Has anyone else made use of powerful DFL bulbs? Always interested to
> learn of others work with this light source.
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

Ali <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote:
> I must admit, I was wondering about power output @ ISO 100. However,
> manufactueres are claiming that 24 Watts of florecent is the equivelant of
> 100 Watts incandecent.

I think manufacturers tend ot overstate "wattage equivalence" for
compact fluorecents. It would be better to compare by lumens
output.

Ratings for 120v incandecent bulbs used in photography follow:

150 watt std frosted (2850k) - 2780 lumens (750 hours) - 18.5 lumens/watt
200 watt std frosted (2900k) - 3800 lumens (750 hours) -19 lumens/watt

250 watt 3200k lamp - 6500 lumens - (20 hours) - 26 lumens/watt
250 watt 3400k photoflood - 8500 lumens (3-4 hours) 34 lumens/watt

500 watt 3200k lamp - 13650 lumens - (60 hours) - 27 lumens/watt
500 watt 3400k photoflood - 17000 lumens - (6-7 hours) - 34 lumens/watt

Peter.
--
pirwin.DeleteThis@ktb.net
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:58:20 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_topper.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in
<C38D9E9C.45BD2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>:

>I really don't kwow what all the hubbub is about on this thread.
>Professional television has been using fluoresecent light for years. Why
>should anyone think that it wouldn't work with digital still photography?

TV exposure is quite a bit less demanding than digital still
photography, and TV studio lighting is very well controlled.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

"Ali" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:lu-dnV073M_oT_raRVnyjwA@pipex.net...
>I must admit, I was wondering about power output @ ISO 100. However,
> manufactueres are claiming that 24 Watts of florecent is the equivelant of
> 100 Watts incandecent. So, the 9 tube is the equivelant of 900 Watts
> incandecent lighting. I'm not sure what the relationship is between watts
> and watts/seconds which seems to be used with flash/strobes, but 900 watts
> sounds like a fair bit. You're not the only person to mention this, but I
> am suprised that they would give such a slow shutter speed at ISO 100.
>
> When you say you used a 150 watt (incandecant equivalent), does that mean
> that these 900 watt units would be 6 times more powerful that what you
> were using?
>

No Ali.
I normally use studio flash. I still use the Fluros in a giant ( 6feet high)
soft box I made and they do have some usefulness but they also have an
alarming ability to alter colours. Particularly skin colours. Normal Anglo
Saxon skin colour takes on a magento glow I can't remove without altering
other colours. I'd rate them a B- for humans and an A for animals (pet
portraits). A+ for advertising objects.

I over came some of the colour cast change issue by using a slow shutter
speed to allow some (more than one) of the flickers to fit within a single
shot.

This raises other issues with depth of field and lens lengths. So changing
your technique is pretty much essencial if you move to fluros. If you add
fluros to an existing setup, you'll quickly discover the value and
limitations.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:33:28 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_topper RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
<C38DD108.45C23%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>:

>On 12/18/07 4:08 PM, in article m4hgm390kua4ukd2bsfljt755578onnrhq RemoveThis @4ax.com,
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:58:20 -0600, George Kerby
>> <ghost_topper RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <C38D9E9C.45BD2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> I really don't kwow what all the hubbub is about on this thread.
>>> Professional television has been using fluoresecent light for years. Why
>>> should anyone think that it wouldn't work with digital still photography?
>>
>> TV exposure is quite a bit less demanding than digital still
>> photography, and TV studio lighting is very well controlled.
>
>You really are showing that you are out of your league here, NavASS. Please
>go away and let the adults have a serious discussion. You obviously no
>nothing about television production these days. Take your little toy camera
>and 'click' your fantasy bullshit to those who know nothing better.

Does acting like an idiot come naturally, or do you have to work at it?

>'HD Television Studio Photography is not demanding.': Tell that to the Pros
>who do that for a living. You will be run out of those newsgroups, just like
>what is happening in here.

Can you name even one HD camera with the shutter speeds of a simple
compact camera? Of course not -- you're just blowing your usual
uninformed hot air. Crawl back in your hole,

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting 

On Dec 19, 6:38 am, John Navas <spamfilt... RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:42:03 -0600, George Kerby
> <ghost_top... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
> <C38E97EB.45CC0%ghost_top...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >On 12/18/07 7:51 PM, in article r1ugm3918kblq3u85n4dren0p50cd4g... RemoveThis @4ax.com,
> >"John Navas" <spamfilt... RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Can you name even one HD camera with the shutter speeds of a simple
> >> compact camera?
> >http://www.abelcine.com/store/product.php?productid=1000189
> >http://www.schumachercamera.com/cameras.htm
>
> In other words, you can't. Thanks for proving my point.
>

He shows you a HD camera with shutter speeds as fast as 2 micro
seconds, just how fast is your compact camera?

And was does shutter speed have to do with it anyway?

The biggest problem with fluorescent lights is that most have odd
spectrum, a blue peak and a wide yellow area, but not much in the red
or green areas. They also tend to go bluer as they age. I don't know
how much better ones that are made for photography are, but shutter
speed is not an issue as fast as I can see.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Continuous Florescent Lighting