Cheap Alternatives to Studio Lights

Hi,

 

I'm setting up a few shoots for friends' bands and solo musicians I know, mostly for free, just for fun and to

build some experience with this kind of shoot. Mostly what I've done has been outdoor/location type stuff, and

nothing I've really needed lighting for. I have one shoot I would like to hire some models for and shoot a sort

of "musician playing guitar on a couch in a dingy party/apartment surrounded by indifferent hot girls" scene, if

that makes any sense, and I would like cold, sharp, kind of grungy lighting.

 

At my job we have two Bowens Tri-Lights we use for product photography, sometimes with the built-in diffusers and

sometimes with a soft-box, but I thought that this type of light would work really well. I was surprised to find

out they are upwards of $700 for a pair. I could rent a set at Calumet here in Boston, but it got me thinking.

 

What, really, would be the difference in buying a few bright apartment/lamp-type fluorescent lights and making a

diffuser and using these instead of similar "professional" lighting intended for studio photography? Or even the

warm white bulbs found in most track lighting fixtures? If I could cheaply build or buy something that would - at

least for the time being given my amateur status - get the job done, I would rather own equipment I could use at

any time rather than rent frequently.

 

I'm not very knowledgeable about this, so forgive me if anything about this is ridiculous.

 

Thanks,

 

Chris

You need these people:

http://www.diyphotography.net/

This site is all about the type of stuff you want to do.

Chris, You will have a hard time getting enough light out of fluorescent lights to be able to shoot at reasonable shutter speed/f-stop combinations. Studio strobes put out hundreds or even thousands of watt-seconds of power; many, many times what fluorescent lamps produce.

 

Your best bet, if you insist on "going ghetto" is to get some 500W work lights on stands from the auto supply store and making large (4ft X 6ft) diffusers. And even then, you will have to raise your ISO setting to get acceptable shutter speeds and f-stops.

 

You are better off renting some real studio strobes and saving your money to purchase some entry level strobes later.

 

<Chas>

The Cheapest Alternative to Studio Lights? Sunlight.

Fluoresent lights are very dim even the "professional" kind. But as long as they are around 5500 degrees K with at least a 90 CRI and your models can hold still for anywhere from 5-30 seconds, depending on your ISO and aperture, then they should work.

I'll second the http://www.diyphotography.net/ link, and add strobist.blogspot.com - while sunlight and real lighting kits rule,

there's a lot you can do with home depot lighting and gaffer's tape:)

 

Check out the strobist site and flickr pools - 2 or three speedlights are much cheaper than studio lights, and can be used in

a huge number of ways. Having tried all sorts of stuff - fluorescent light rings and light boxes - strobes, even a few vivtar

285's, get out a lot more light than bulbs.

www.strobist.com has all the answers on how to get studio quality lighting out of inexpensive shoe mount flashes. See the Lighting 101 section in particular. There's nothing you're talking about that can't be done with a couple of $90 Vivitar 285HVs and a few inexpensive accessories.

Christopher, your first problem with trying to use flourescents or some similar household lighting for

photography would be white balance.

 

There is a long list of reasons for using studio strobes, and light modifiers like softboxes, grids, beauty

dishes and so on. As I noted, getting the light color right (5300K-5600K) is the first and most important

consideration. Being able to precisely control output level is another.

 

Nikon or Canon speedlights cost as much as Calumet/Bowens tri-lites, in any event, which means that strobist

style lighting techniques aren't any cheaper. The fine tuning ability of studio strobes and their construction

for all day daily use also accounts for the often multi-thousand dollar expense of professional studio strobes.

The lighting and the lens make much of a photograph, even though most amateur photographers are mistakenly

fixated on camera bodies.

There are lots of lighting alternatives out there.

 

Amvona used to sell lighting on eBay, but is being sued for patent infringement.

 

Fotodiox has some lesser cost alternatives for cool lighting.

.....www.strobist.com has all the answers on how to get NOT QUITE studio quality lighting out of inexpensive shoe mount flashes.......

 

Fixed.....

fluorescents also have frequency problems. if you are in the USA you can only use them at shutter speeds below 1/50th,

or at multiples of 50, which means that most analogue cameras will be useless. if you were to shoot at 1/60th you will

get odd bands of light like a TV shot on video.

 

if you want something cheap and good-ish, call a theatre/stage lighting hire place and see if they have some older

Fresnels that they will sell you for cheap. I have two ex hire Minuette lanterns with 500w halogen, then you get a lighting

stand and a $10 manfrotto adapter to mount them on the lighting stand. these are different to strobes, but allow for a

decent amount of control, and eliminate the need for flash sync which is always a pain. but faster to set up than a studio

strobe, and easier to see what you are doing than with hammerhead flashes.

 

t