My First Monolights - Do I need more expensive ones?

 

<p>I need to buy my first studio strobes and have been doing quite a bit of looking around. The world of strobes and studio flashes is new to me and I'm hoping some experienced people here can give me a few pointers.<br>

Based on your experience and knowledge, why do or don't I want to purchase <a href="http://www.adorama.com/FP620M.html#reviews" target="_blank">these strobes</a> ? If I don't need to spend more money than this on strobes, then I don't want to.<br>

Key information: 1)The strobes will be used in a poorly lit, tight environment - they'll be no more than four feet from the surface they're intended to illuminate. 2) They'll be triggered as often as every 10 seconds, with a little longer breaks every half dozens flashes or so, for 6 to 8 hours of each day.<br>

If you haven't read my <a href="/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00cON5">other thread</a>, here is a little about what I'm doing. A company has asked me to install a small, permanent product photography studio in their warehouse and produce from 2 to 5 simple but quality photos of each of their products (10,000+). The products need to have completely white backgrounds, which I plan to accomplish with lighting not Photoshop. Space is precious, and so they've only given me an 8' wide x 8' long x 7' tall space. After the initial fiddling, I'd like to leave most everything in static positions and just run products through. At the moment I've settled on a setup similar to <a href="http://crewofone.com/2011/product-photography-behind-the-scenes/" target="_blank">this one</a>. Because of space, I'd like to illuminate the background from underneath and maybe from above too. An additional light will illuminate the product with at least a reflector filling in from the other side.<br>

Thanks for your thoughts!<br>

John</p>

 

<p>be aware that you'll need to be able to reduce the output significantly and many of the cheaper strobes can be somewhat limited in that regard. Of course, you could put ND gels on them too.</p>

<p>Hi John,</p>

<p>IMO, to many of the examples from that set up are poorly lit. Some need fill and others have blown highlights. Depending on what products you are shooting, you may need some reflectors and some scrims.</p>

<p>You are estimating possibly 30,000 to 50,000 images … in pretty rapid succession if you want to finish this job in while you are still alive : -)</p>

<p>The question I would pose is: are cheap strobes like those up to the task?</p>

<p>The answer to that is probably not, and if you visit any high volume production photography studio, you will not find such lights.</p>

<p>A clue as which ones will hold up can be had by visiting any photographic rental house's website.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

Are any of the objects reflective, like metal or glass? If so, lighting those types of objects takes a fair amount of knowledge and the right

equipment to do it. It's one of the more challenging types of photography. Have you read Light, Science & Magic?

As for the lights themselves, putting that kind of load on them will require some quality gear. You might contact Buff and ask about their

Einsteins or White Lightnings and ask if they'd be up to that kind of task. Be prepared to spend some money for good gear, or you'll be

throwing good money after bad.

<p>Einsteins.</p>

<p>Second Matt. 9 stop adjustment down to 2.5 watt seconds. </p>

<p>First of all why are you paying for this? This is the companies expense. Secondly how did you get yourself into this position when you obviously know nothing about what you are doing? </p>

<p>There is NO reason to spend a lot of money for such a simple job, on a big bucks brand name where all you'll be paying for is the name on the box.</p>

<p>I have a situation similar to yours: archival work, two strobe in umbrellas, each about six feet from the work. I bought two 200WS Interfit strobes--much like the ones you have linked to--because I didn't want to spend a lot of money, and it was the right thing to do. Full blast my exposures with EI200 are running f11-f16, and I have never turned them down from full. I have had them for about eight years, 20,000 exposures or so, and the only one that died felt to the floor when I was moving something else. Otherwise, I haven't so much as burned out a modeling light.</p>

<p>You are not going to be toting them around a lot. I really fail to see why you need to buy a strobe which will take a rental house level of abuse. If one of them dies, and I really doubt it will, just buy another with the thousand dollars you saved by not buying the high-priced spread.</p>

<p>Diving right in!</p>

<p><strong>Howard M</strong> - Thanks for this pointer. I'll be aware of that.</p>

<p><strong>Marc Williams</strong> - The general method for achieving the white background is what I'm wanting to incorporate from his setup. My specific lighting methods will be different. Will the strobes hold up? I don't know. That's why I'm asking advice.</p>

<p><strong>Devon McCarroll</strong> - Yes, some of the objects are metal and glass. I have experienced and expect to deal with some pretty tricky items. Because of reading quite a few thread on this forum, I have purchased and am part way through reading "Light, Science & Magic." The company is willing to spend the amount of money necessary to purchase what's needed, which is what I'm having to determine. Thanks for your recommendations here.</p>

<p><strong>Matt Laur</strong> - I'll spend that kind of money if I have to.</p>

<p><strong>Bob Bill</strong> - Thanks for pointing out the Einstein's 9 stop adjustment range. I wasn't aware of that. The question is, does the ability to adjust down to 2.5 watt seconds justify the expense?</p>

<p><strong>Michael Mowery</strong> - To answer your second questions first. I have always wished, Michael, that I could be a pro at something before I started doing it but have found that this isn't the way of things, at least in my case. I always have to start somewhere, and even though I "obviously know nothing about what I'm doing," as you put it, I may have some knowledge and experience in other areas of photography and am primarily lacking in experiential knowledge of studio strobes. As to your first question, I'm not paying for it. You're right it is a company expense but I feel very strongly that I'm the one who should be choosing the equipment instead of someone who doesn't know what "aperture" means. If you have any advice for me, I'd be glad to hear it since I have so much to learn.</p>

<p><strong>Michael Darnton</strong> - I appreciate your frugal perspective and you may be right that this job may be simple (compared to some) but where the lights are concerned, there is potential for a lot of wear. I don't care about the name on the box as much as I care about the quality of the internals. Thanks for sharing your experience with your Interfit strobes. One of my primary goals in asking for advice was to gather wisdom and ultimately be able to make a balanced (price, quality, & features) choice.</p>

<p><em><strong>Thanks everyone for your advice.</strong></em> I appreciate that you took the time to share. I'm going to continue my research and will look forward to hearing any additional advice you or others might have.<br>

John</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Perhaps continuous lighting might be a better option than strobes. Tungsten or LED panels might improve work flow since you have thousands of items to shoot, plus they're quite easy to modify.</p>

<p>I think you will melt those strobes in no time. I am with Matt on this one, not necessarily the brand, but that quality.</p>

<p>From my experience, while there are some inexpensive ways of accomplishing similar tasks, you generally get what you pay for. This doesn't mean that inexpensive gear is junk or doesn't do its job well, but I would consider more than the initial price when comparing gear.<br>

Another question to ask yourself is that if the lights fail and you lost a day or two of productivity each time, how much will that cost you/your company/your employer? If this happens frequently, you would come out ahead by buying better lights on the front end, and save the aggravation as a bonus.<br>

Paul C. Buff has an excellent reputation and the Einsteins are great units. The E640 has a range of 2.5 to 640ws and in the constant color mode the Einsteins are very stable as far as color temperature. There's a more thorough review and comparison here that might help: http://kevsteele.com/blog/profoto-einstein-lighting. A pair of Einsteins will run you about $1k.<br>

Next, you could consider the Profoto D1's. A pair of 500's, including stands, cords, and umbrellas, goes for around $2200. Profoto's products are rugged and can definitely handle the heavy use you're talking about – you (or your client/employer in this case) would get many years of great high-volume use. The Profoto lights are also known for spot-on consistent color temperature and the light is beautiful. See them here: http://tinyurl.com/k6etf9f<br>

There are so many considerations, however the above two options are good ones, I believe. There's a while slew of others out there but these both have great reputations.<br>

Lastly, if you're going to be shooting 10,000 products, even the Profoto D1's work out to around 22 cents per product shot. <br>

I hope this helps!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[John H]...but where the lights are concerned, there is potential for a lot of wear. I don't care about the name on the box as much as I care about the quality of the internals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi, I don't know anything about the inexpensive Flashpoint units you are considering, but given that they are roughl 1/2 to 1/3 the price of roughly equivalent "pro" units, such as Photogenic or even the Einsteins, the obvious implication is that the parts are not up to the same quality levels.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that they can't do the job you need, just that there must be a difference. As an example, when circuit boards are made there is usually an option to use what they call a "conformal coating" as protection from the environment. For indoor equipment, a buck or two might be saved by skipping the coating. Electronic components might be mid instead of hi-grade. Switches and keypads are probably not the best quality (if you've ever bought a cheap calculator where some of the keys went "dead," you know what this can mean).</p>

<p>This doesn't necessarily mean that THIS equipment is "deficient" for its intended job; it might simply be lacking the "overkill" built into some other units. But you're not going to be hauling this to job sites every week, or exposing it to harsh environements, so you don't really need heavy-duty gear. As long as you don't do rapid-shooting, even the 50,000 shots over several months should not be a big deal.</p>

<p>Looking at the Adorama website, it DOES have a 2-year warranty, which goes way beyond the time span of your initial job. Further, they have an "Adorama TV" clip about it, which tells me they are taking it seriously. Assuming that there is no real "cost" to stop shooting while you wait for a warranty replacement, it may well be worth taking a chance.</p>

<p>The one thing that bothers me is that it doesn't specifically state that it has UV-coated flashtubes. If you find that white objects take on a bluish tinge, it's probably a result of non-coated tubes. If you wanted, you could get some UV filter material and attach to the front of the flash to handle the problem.</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes, and the cost saving is important, I'd probably take a chance. In the other thread, I had suggested to keep a spare flashtube on hand. With these, maybe even an extra monolight as the spare. If it's a decent unit, the only thing I'd warn about is to be careful not to overheat things (this is hard on flashtubes). Aside from that, 50,000 flashes is probably not a very big deal. Note that I would not take this risk on just any low-cost flash; if it were not for the Adorama warranty I'd stay clear.</p>

<p>If you go with it, I hope you'll update back here. Good luck.</p>