Originally posted by Just1MoreDave *snip*
The example shot has a light colored wall and floor which reflect some of the Christmas lights around. That makes the photo look like the lights are the only light source, though they could have added lighting off camera if they were tricky*. Your idea of including the tree sounds OK but the lights won't have the same surfaces to reflect off of. So you may have lots of trouble creating the same soft lighting look.
*snip*
*I think an ordinary lamp off-camera and a gold reflector might work here.
Lamps are good if the alternative is total darkness...
However - and you no doubt know that, just making sure the OP is informed - the catch is that their output is so low you need exposure time (or ISO) to make up for that.
There was a thread on this forum regarding shooting kids indoor with big-ish, very bright led panels, and it turned out that they too were vastly underpowered with respect to a flash pop (basic models are around the same power as a lamp - 1000-1300 lumens).
See:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/125-flashes-lighting-studio/276012-how-ma...ght-panel.html
The thing is, it might only last a fraction of a second, but it's more than enough to give all the light that a normal (1000lumen) lamp can provide in, say, ten seconds?
So, don't rely on lamps to provide additional lightning, you'll be lucky if they give you a stop more...
Only exception is if they are real,
real close... remember the square of the distance thingy...
Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can shoot a boy's face illuminated only by a 10" tablet in total darkness at ISO1600, f/2, 1/50 or thereabouts, if its face is within, say, 4 or 5in of the screen.