Will this kit do?

I'm a newbie to studio lighting. I purchased a three piece Britek fluorescent

light kit (each softbox has 4-40watt bulbs). I also purchased a 28" Smith Victor

light tent (which hasn't yet arrived). My plan was to use them to do some

close-up work - I do some <a href="http://dbe.smugmug.com/Nature/243967">gem &

mineral and rock shooting</a> and wanted to advance to some better equipment.

Tonight I did a practice product shot with the new lights, just threw some

objects on a whitecore board. And while the lights seemed fine for that, I'm

thinking they may not be strong enough to provide adequate lighting through a

light tent. I'm open to suggestions. But, I do have a limited budget - I'm

trying something totally new here, and buying the Britek kit was a big

investment for me. I do like the cool light that fluorescent's provide. But what

kind of wattage do I really need?<div></div>

For stills of rocks and gems your gear should be fine, Dave. Obviously you'll need to use

longish shutter speeds. But off of a tripod that shouldn't pose a problem, should it?

 

Getting catchlights - 'specular highlights' - in a light tent is nigh impossible. So you may

want to fake 'm in PP. I use PhotoLine32 for that (http://www.pl32.com/). Try it.<div></div>

"Getting catchlights - 'specular highlights' - in a light tent is nigh impossible. So you may want to fake 'm in PP. I use PhotoLine32 for that (http://www.pl32.com/). Try it."

 

That example you posted looks absolutely fakey. Why not use a real star filter instead? Less photoshop time and it won't look like fake cartoon stars?

"That example you posted looks absolutely fakey. Why not use a real star filter instead?

Less photoshop time and it won't look like fake cartoon stars?"

 

Hi JR,

 

1) that example was a 'quick & dirty'. If I'd spent a full minute on it instead of 3 seconds

you wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.

 

2) 'Photoshop time' was 3 seconds . . . So 'less time in Photoshop' is a moot point.

 

3) "Why not use a star filter"? Because you cannot use a star filter with a light tent: a star

filter needs specular highlights (overexposed points of light) to convert into stars. In a

light tent you don't get specular highlights, so there's nothing for the star filter to convert

into stars!

 

With a light tent you have 2 choices: either NO catchlights, or faked catchlights.

 

Of you know a third, better, way - proven in practice - I'd be interested to hear it!

 

Have fun!

In answer to the original question, for still product photography, you don't need a lot of wattage. Since nothing's moving, you can make up for lack of light by using a long shutter speed, assuming you're using a good tripod and cable release or self timer.

<p>

In answer to the specular highlights thing, I agree that the photoshopped highlights look cartoonish and fake. To get natural looking specular highlights that are consistent with the way the rest of the subject is lit, you need to have at least one hard light in your mix. This means a small and/or distant light source. Go to your nearest fancy department store (Bloomingdales, Macy's, etc.) and check the display case they have for waterford crystal decorative items. It's full of tiny halogen spots that dazzle and make the crystals sparkle.

<p>

<a href="www.strobist.blogspot.com">The Strobist</a> has some good suggestions for product photography, including the <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html">DIY $10 Macro Photo Studio</a>. Another example is <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-assignment-shoot-your-shiny-new.html">here</a>.

This approach seems a bit more flexible than a typical light tent, because it allows you to swap out side panels and mix diffuse sources with specular sources as needed.

<p>

The Strobist's pages are oriented toward the use of small battery powered flash units instead of bigger hot lights, but many of the techniques can be adapted to any light source.

Let's just say that with 160W of light diffused through a light tent... you are going to be looking at some long exposure times :)

To be honest, although these very low powered lights are usable in terms of power (just) for this type of subject, it's virtually impossible to do anything to modify the type of light they produce, which IMO makes them a poor choice.

 

Light tents are also the worst possible choice for your purpose. Look in any jeweller's shop window and see how they light their displays - tiny, hard light sources to create interest, with the general lighting providing fill. Light tents produce the opposite effect.

 

If you take a look at the various Lighting Themes (there is a list of them archived under 'Administration' in this forum) you'll find several that will help - for example there's one on creating diffused specular highlights and another on combining soft and hard lighting, to name just 2 of those that are bound to be useful.

 

I wish you'd asked about this before buying your fancy kit. Personally I'd send it back and use the money for one decent flash head, which will also be useful for other types of photography.

"With a light tent you have 2 choices: either NO catchlights, or faked catchlights.

 

Of you know a third, better, way - proven in practice - I'd be interested to hear it!"

 

If you don't know how to create specular highlights with a lighting tent then I would suggest you purchase a basic lighting book and start reading. I'd give you a hint on how to do it, but others have explained it very well. I will say that producing real specular highlights will make your gem photo look much more professional than the cartoonish "pasted-on stars" look you posted. If I ever submitted a photo like that to one of my clients I would have been fired off the gig.

 

Have fun!

Of course, back in the "dark ages", we'd expose the subject, make a few marks on the GG where we wanted specular highlights, use a piece of backlit black seamless, and basically punch some small holes where you wanted the highlights, attach a star filter, double expose so the black is off the bottom end of the film response, voila, instant specular highlights exactly where you need them, after you do it a few times, only takes a min or two.

 

 

erie

Hi all - back to the original question on whether my lights are strong enough...the dealer I'm working with said I could return the kit for another one of my choosing. At this point I'm really unsure whether to step up to a stronger fluorescent kit (like <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190076823581&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RUPX_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=190057775305&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=UpSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget">this one</a>, which uses 80watt lamps) or go to an entry level halogen kit (how about <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190077584730&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RUPX_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=190057775305&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=UpSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget">this one</a>, with 500watt blubs). Thing is, I really like the "cool" factor of fluorescent. Will the 80watt lamps be a big improvement? The kit it $200 more!

Dave,

 

Well, your alternative fluorescent kit may be adequate in terms of power, assuming of course that you never want to extend your range of subjects in the future. And at least they seem to be able to accept light modifiers, although whether any are available outside of the limited ones included may be another question.

 

IMO, if there's one thing worse than fluorescent it's hotlights. Apart from all the problems with the heat, the difficulty and expense of modifiers and the inconsistent colour and exposure between shots (due to inconsistent voltage)they are also very low on power. I did a quick and dirty test on a 500W halogen recently. At a distance of 3' the exposure was 1/30th at f/6.3. Fit a shoot through umbrella and that became 1/30th at f/2.8.

 

Why not just get a flash head or two?

Gary, I took a look at some other kits offered by the same vendor. Would <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Britek-540w-s-Flash-Light-Kit-with-Boom_W0QQitemZ190078495101QQihZ009QQcategoryZ30087QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem">this</a> be a good entry kit (it's about the same price I dished out for the fluorescent). Since I'm doing a return, I'm kind of limited to what this vendor offers. Here's <a href="http://stores.ebay.com/Linco-Studio-Lighting-Technology_Flash-Light-Kits_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZQ2d1QQfsubZ3QQftidZ2QQtZkm">the page</a> with all of their flash kits.

Dave,

 

Sorry, but I'm not impressed with any of them. The direct replacement (in terms of cost) only adjusts from full to half power - OK, that's twice as much as fluorescent or tungsten but nowhere near enough - and even their top of the range model only goes down to 1/4 power. And all of them have inadequate 100 watt modelling lamps.

 

Can't you just get your money back and spend it on Alien Bees instead?

 

I have no personal experience of Alien Bees but they do seem to get glowing testimonials from our U.S. members. They're modestly-priced beginner lights that have a good spec and an excellent range or accessories.

 

As I understand it, they only sell direct, not via dealers.