CFL for studio work

[maddog50]

<p>Hi, I was wondering if any one has used the CFL lights for portrait or product lighting with Color film. The ones i Have, have a 6500k rating on them. They are white in appearance after warming up. Thanks</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>They are not very bright and because they are fluorescent, they do not emit a continuous spectrum. Which makes color correction problematic.</p>

<p>If you absolutely must use CFLs, get bulbs with a CRI (color rendition index) higher than 90, any less and you'll have sickly green colors.</p>

<p>Since you are shooting film, you will have to gel the lights to get a good match with the color rendering of your film, and you will have to waste a roll of film and processing to find out what gel is needed. With digital you can just shoot, dial in some correction, and shoot again.</p>

<p>Fluorescents of any kind are problematic for photography because of the low light levels and the non-continuous spectrum.</p>

<p>I suggest that you will get better results, more quickly, with less cost and frustration by buying a couple of entry-level studio monolights now. You will later anyway, so why go through the pain.</p>

<p><Chas><br /></p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I have used the LED LitePanels and they work pretty good. I think they are a lot brighter than CFL though. I only rented it once because unless I am shooting both video and photos I prefer my studio strobes, much more power.</p>

 

[geoffs1]

<p>Here's some more info on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index">CRI (Color Rendering Index)</a> value. It is possible to construct fluorescent lamps with high CRI values, but LEDs seem to be taking over the market.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I am working on making my own LED LitePanels. However, this is not as easy as i thought it would be anyone got a schematic? :-). </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>These two threads show some examples of available CFL lighting on the market:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Skps</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00VEJG</p>

[daan05]

<p>I replaced the lighting in a 24 x 36 softbox with a 200w CFL (and removed the diffuser panels). Shooting a white styrofoam head with the softbox 5' away on one side and using a canon 580ex bounced at 1/16 power on the other side (also 5' away) gave equal lighting results. The head looked equally lit on both sides and the color was the same. It just looked well lit. Maybe there is some difference if you break the photo down with software, but nothing that will be perceived by the naked eye. It printed uniformly at 240 dpi. <br>

For those curious about settings, I find a good reference is f5.6 @ 1/125 on ISO 400 (18% grey) with the light source 5' from the subject (note light source/head. The containing softbox would be closer). Although CFL is soft light by design physics, I do use a single diffuser panel for portrait lighting (if nothing else it is easier on the model's eyes), which reduces the above reference by 1/3 stop. <br>

This light can be bought at hydroponic lighting stores/websites. It is rated 5000K and 'officially' is only 81 CFI although, like stated, there is no noticeable rendering dysphoria. I use strobes and flashes for all lighting in the studio except for the single softbox and this has worked without issue to date.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Dana,</p>

<p>Can you post a sample shot of a live subject using this lighting setup?</p>

<p>I've never heard of a hydroponic light. What's the brand name?</p>

<p>Note that some plant growing lights can give off some potentially dangerous UV rays.</p>