Energy saving lamps for photography

10/28/2004 12:05:14 PM · #1

As Halogen lights create a lot of light and a lot of heat, I was wondering what the problem is with multiple energy saving lamps to build a sort of soft box.
I figure if you can use 4 or 6 lamps which can be picked up pretty cheap now, you would be able to create a good amount of light, and have the advantage that they don't create much heat.
Is there a problem with the colour these lamps create or can that be fixed with the white balance of the camera?

I would be interested in your comments

jxpfeer

Nikon D70

10/28/2004 03:04:21 PM · #2

if you're talking about the energy saving compact flourescents, you might find they're not powerful enough, unless you're shooting still subjects with a tripod....

usually you can fix the color cast if you custom white-balance those. the color temperature is pretty similar to halogen if i'm not mistaken. i think the biggest problem with them is not enough power.

Philos

Canon EOS-30D

10/28/2004 03:40:52 PM · #3

didn't I see a photo somewhere here before of a softbox build with powersaving lamps?

There where about 6 of them together in one softbox...
Don't know how effective it was...

I think it was something about Theodor38 building his own softboxes, but I could be 100% wrong also.

Message edited by author 2004-10-28 15:50:12.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

10/28/2004 03:48:01 PM · #4

he did build his own soft boxes, but i dunno if he used fluorescents for them...

Philos

Canon EOS-30D

10/28/2004 03:49:29 PM · #5

Found it:

Read here...
Look at picture here.

This is NOT my softbox, or my invention.. Credit go to Ohmark

Message edited by author 2004-10-28 15:50:04.

10/29/2004 03:22:33 AM · #6

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I was thinking of.

Good Ol Kiwi inginuity!!

Hhmark. Did you build Mk II? If so how many bulbs do you need for a good light? How big are they etc?

10/29/2004 04:45:15 AM · #7

'Urro..

Oooo, I've been quoted, I feel all famous like.

I made these lights originally for taking photos of dolls for my wife, for which they work really well. I've since added another two blubs to each one, so I can get 600W equivalent per side. That's meant I can use them for portraits at a push, but really not bright enough.. (see the comment about mounting the bulbs sideways down a bit)

I've not built any bigger ones yet, and probably wont as I've moved up/sideways to using cardboard 'soft-boxes' with vivtar 285 flashes in the back of them, heaps more light, and zero heat.

I still use them for 'still life' photos, and have recently done some product shots using them on a paid job, so they are certainly functional.

Here's some comments, in no particular order, about my experiences with the 'fluoro floods'.

- Let them warm up, and use manual white balance off a white/grey card. I let them sit for 10 minutes or so before setting the white balance, and I always re-set it at the begining of a session.

- Ambient temperature seems to have a slight effect on the colour temp, so if the temperature swings a bit in your 'studio' (Garage in my case) it can pay to re-set the white balance every half hour or so. (This is true of tungsten and Halogen lights as well, but not as noticably as these wee fluoros IMHO)

- Buy cheap bulbs by all means, but get them all at the same time.. I got two lots from the same shop, same brand, but they had very different colour temps. Here in NZ the 20W ones can be had for $5 at discount places, so I imagine that means they are $2-3 US? Shouldn't be a big deal to get lots at one time.

- High shutter speeds (around 1/500th or faster) gives interesting results with uneven/inconsistent exposure, I assume because they flicker at some high frequency.

- If I do it again I'll use a different shaped reflector, or put the bulbs around the perimeter of the bucket/bowl with their sides facing out. Most of their light is radiated at the side, so the shape of these buckets is all wrong to get lots of light out the front. I suspect I'm loosing 30% of the light just lighting up the inside of the bucket really well...

- They do get hot! With six of them running for long in those buckets I found I had to make some spacers for the drafting film to hang out the front a little. I used some bent wire coathangers and more clothes pegs. Very high tech. Basically spaced the diffuser about 1" in front of the bucket, so it allowed some air to get in/out.

- Mounting/hanging them is a pain. I might use something square for the MkII version, so I can put some sort of bracket/stand on them. With the round ones I run bits of string over the rafters in the garage, and through small holes drilled in the plastic. OK over the big bench ('Studio Floor') in the garage, but if you want to take them anywhere it's a pain.

- If you put some vent holes in, a Cardboard box will do good service. After showing my buckets to a friend he made up some cardboard box jobs which have a 24x36" face, and 10 bulbs, facing sideways. 1000W equivalent with only a 200W load, and definately enough light for portraits. This idea really needs vents top and bottom of the box to get the air flowing through.

- You can now get dimmable versions of these bulbs, but they cost a fortune. To 'dim' one of the floods I just remove a couple of bulbs! If I was feeling really sophisticated I'd put switches on them so I could switch out each bulb, but that sounds like too much fiddling around.

As always, just my 2c worth. :-).

Cheers, Me.

10/29/2004 04:55:44 AM · #8

Thanks for the in depth and informative reply.
You should look at making a stand like in the DIY'...Tinker Tubes
Tinker Tubes article
If you need 10 lamps, probably you are not gaining a huge advantage in light versus heat savings, but probably a very even light if all the lamps are spread out.
I guess I'll have to think about it, or pick up some cheap flashes which can be fired by remote control, and build something around them.
Decisions decisions.
I think the flashes would be easier to mount, but also cost more, and unless they are studio flashes need batteries.

10/29/2004 05:04:54 AM · #9

I found the flashes worked out cheaper than the small fluoros when I wanted to get more light... I'll take some pic's of my gear in a wee while and post em..

10/29/2004 07:31:45 AM · #10

I thought I'd write a whole blurb with each of these photos, but it's late and I'm feeling lazy :-).. If anyone has any questions, let me know..

My flashes, less the Nikon SB-24 used to take the photo.. The vivtar 285's cost me $30 each (NZD) they go for up to $60 US on ebay. The hanmiex is handy as a hair-light as it has an inbuilt slave cell. Slave triggers in this shot as well, $13.90 USD for two from Ebay. The 285's are powerful enough when used with a couple of brollys to do groups of 5-10 people comfortably at F/5.6.

The printer box softboxes. I made two. Really good for 'product' shots and also work for portraits:

Taken using just one of the softboxes, no fill. If I can find some larger rigid boxes I'll probably upgrade them, more surface area would be nice.

My small softbox, used for lighting backdrops, and fill.. With the Nikon SB-24. The Nikon flash was $280 NZD second hand. I think I paid too much for it, but it's a great flash..

Home made brolly, $4 NZD golf umbrella, spray painted silver, home made brackets..

A bit of braket detail.

Last, but not least, the flash meter. I'm a recent convert to using a meter. (See thread:
Also blue, this is him sitting under the softbox as shown above..

I use the flashes in manual mode, and use a simple pc-sync connection. I borrowed a dedicated (420ex) canon flash with the off-camera cable for a wee while but was shocked at the price of their flash systems.. So I got a 20 foot pc sync lead, hotshoe-PC adaptor and some accessory hotshoes for $20 second hand on a local auction site. Less than a tenth the cost of just the 2 foot off camera cable for a dedicated flash.

The only caveat on this is watch out for the sync voltages on older flashes, you might toast your cameras flash firing electronics. The Vivitars are 8 volt which is fine on modern cameras, the hanimex is 260 Volt, so I only use it as a slave!!

Cheers, Me.

edit: removed links to images, I deleted them from the site they were on, sorry.

Message edited by author 2008-01-30 02:06:23.

11/05/2004 06:48:23 AM · #11

Ohmark, thanks for your detailed explination.
I think I am going to go ahead and try to build them this weekend.
I am intending to make two 80 or 100 cm softboxes.
They will contain 8 x 20W Fluros in each. If this doesn't create enough light I can easily add another 4. As 20W is equivalent to 75 Watts (Some say 100, but this is overly optimistic) It should produce 600W of light, or 72000 Lumens.
Is this enough for small group photography?
Yesterday I got 2 1.6 Meter Alu tripods for 16 Euro each to use as light stands.
I will try to photographically document my project so if it works, others can try.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/10/2004 09:02:47 AM · #12

Ok I have my first lamp made.
It is an 80 CM square.
Uses 8 x 17 watt energy saveing lamps. I had to return the first batch of 20 watt lamps as they created so little light. I tested all the possible lamps in a shop, and found these 17 watt brighter than the Osram 20 watt ones!

Now my question.
What sort of density is the material on the front of the softbox.
I was thinking of a sort of white nylon, but this probably blocks heaps of light.
Or is the material more of an open weave like a gauze?

I will post a picture and examples and costs when I see they work properly

skylen

Nikon D200

11/10/2004 10:51:55 AM · #13

Originally posted by aKiwi:

Last week I built a lightbox for backlighting macro shots. (Came in useful this week, hint, hint.) It uses 6 x 23W lights for 600W tungsten equivalent light output. I made it in a Rubbermaid tub like ohmark did for his setup. I use a cheap plastic tablecloth from the dollar store, two layers thick, on the top of the tub, to diffuse the light. It works fabulously.

I also tried a white bedsheet, but the weave is pretty evident and the diffusion is less uniform and complete. Also, less light makes it through. So the plastic tablecloth works the best for me.

edit: typo

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 10:52:46.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/10/2004 10:57:02 AM · #14

Is it a milky white one, or opaque clear plastic? I have been looking for something like that.
Like those old shower curtains

skylen

Nikon D200

11/10/2004 11:07:30 AM · #15

Originally posted by aKiwi:

Is it a milky white one, or opaque clear plastic? I have been looking for something like that.
Like those old shower curtains

It's milky white, with a texture like very fine sandpaper. Yeah, like a plain old shower curtain. You can't see through it, but it diffuses the light really well.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/10/2004 11:29:00 AM · #16

You should be able to buy actual diffusion fabric by the yard; here is one example from B&H available by the yard...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/10/2004 11:31:43 AM · #17

Originally posted by EddyG:

You should be able to buy actual diffusion fabric by the yard; here is one example from B&H available by the yard...

$36.95 per Yd. That would about double the price of my softbox!! :-)

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/10/2004 11:36:15 AM · #18

Yeah Chimera stuff is pretty expensive (but highly regarded). I didn't search on B&H for other alternatives. Although I did quickly just find that you can buy a "generic" 24x36 softbox on eBay for $50... link... =]

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 11:38:05.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/10/2004 03:08:59 PM · #19

Not bad.
Mine will cost about that, but including lighting and a stand!
I am still looking for an alternative difuser fabrick.
I have never realy looked at a real live softbox, so I don't know what exactly I am looking for.

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

11/10/2004 03:43:18 PM · #20

I've used BRIGHTLINE compact Daylight flurorescent boxes for some time, the come in a bank of four and are equivalent to a 1Kwatt tungstent lightsource....but they cost 3000$ canadian each....so flash is still the best choice