[magnum1]

Hi there,

I am looking into continuous lighting kits and and would like a little guidence. I basically want to know which is better for a portable kit to be used in Prom / school photography etc...

I am looking at either soft boxes versus umbrella set-ups. I know I'm being pretty generic, but I want to get a two stand kit of one or the other. I want to make sure I have enough light to just use the kit without any other light source.

Thanks for your time.

[flyer]

I sometimes use continuous light source. I like them BUT when you take them on-site, they use a lot of "juice" and have a tendency to trip breakers if they are not on a dedicated circuit, and they generate a LOT of heat. That's why I use strobes when I can't make sure I'll have a dedicated electrical circuit. The plus side is that they are easy to set-up since you see the changes you do right away. If you go for continuous lighting, I suggest you get a set with 500W. bulbs, since 250W. are kind of marginal. For myself, I use an old Bowens kit (about 25 years old)" The beaty of continuous lighting is that almost nothing can go wrong with them, beside a burnt bulb (they are kind of fragile when they're hot).

[magnum1]

I don't think voltage will be a problem as I am looking at the "daylight" fluorescent bulbs and they also run cooler. I still don't know if I should go with the softbox or umbrella setup. That is my delema.

[flyer]

I thought you were looking at the tungsten type of lighting. For myself, I would go with the softbox, as the umbrellas seem to reduce the light output more than the softbox.

[soccerjoe5]

One thing I don't like about umbrellas is that you can sometimes see the the umbrella frame when shooting reflective stuff.

[Wheatfield]

I don't think voltage will be a problem as I am looking at the "daylight" fluorescent bulbs and they also run cooler. I still don't know if I should go with the softbox or umbrella setup. That is my delema.

What I don't like about fluorescent lams is inconsistent colour from shot to shot.
I'm told this is caused by the lamps changing colour slightly as they switch phase.





Unfortunately, florescent lamps are discontinuous spectrum, and are not continuous light.

[magnum1]

Really? I was under the impression that once they are warmed up they run at their listed 5600k.

[Wheatfield]

Really? I was under the impression that once they are warmed up they run at their listed 5600k.

If you look at a spectral analysis, you will find that while they emulate 5600K, they have spikes and drop outs in their spectral output.
This, in itself, probably isn't a big deal, although some colours may reproduce badly because of it.
My real problem is what I got in the samples above. Those pictures were shot sequentially on continuous advance, so should be taken within 1/3 second of each other, but the white balance is completely different, and I was unable to bring them to identical during raw conversion.
The reason, from what I've been able to ascertain, is that the light wasn't the same colour from one picture to the next.
This may prove to not be a problem for you, but it does make me suspcious fo using florescent lamps as a light source.
Out of curiosity, have you checked into some of the lower cost monolights? I don't know how their pricing compares to what you are looking at, but I think strobes is the better way to go for studio lighting.
In my sample pictures, the room is lit by banks of 8' tubes, and had been on for over an hour when those pictures were taken. They are part of a series of six images of the dog doing a recall. Three pictures show a fairly normal colour, thee pictures do not, and are all different.
If you want, the series is posted here:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/whitebalance/wb.html
The images were shot on auto WB, but I have been assured by several sources that the failure is the lights, not the camera

[soccerjoe5]

I get those too when shooting very fast speeds under flourescent lamps here at home.

[magnum1]

Well, I don't want to argue because I am not all that experienced, but I shot basketball photo's last night in a gymnasium with total fluorescent lighting and I set my camera to tungston WB. ALL pictures has a consistant color. This makes me wonder if when you shoot photos in 1/3sec increment and in Auto WB the camera is searching too much. I know you said it's not the camera but... I intend to shoot portraits and I really don't think I will find the problems you have had.

I hope I'm right...

[flyer]

Verify if the lighting you want to use are AC or DC lights. If they are AC, you can have problems with white balance due to flickering. Compact fluorescent, like the one sold for home use to replace standard light bulbs, are supposed to be flicker free. So, I'm pretty sure fluorescent lights used for photography are also the flicker free type.

[Wheatfield]

Well, I don't want to argue because I am not all that experienced, but I shot basketball photo's last night in a gymnasium with total fluorescent lighting and I set my camera to tungston WB. ALL pictures has a consistant color. This makes me wonder if when you shoot photos in 1/3sec increment and in Auto WB the camera is searching too much. I know you said it's not the camera but... I intend to shoot portraits and I really don't think I will find the problems you have had.

I hope I'm right...

I suspect if you keep the shutter speeds down, you'll be OK. I was using the highest shutter speed I could for that series, and appear to have caught the lights between cycles a couple of times.
If it had been the camera setting the white balance incorrectly, I would have been able to secure identical exposures by tweaking the WB during RAW conversion, which I wasn't able to do.