Modeling Lights: 150W -vs- 250W

[TheToad]

I'm about to purchase some monolights and have narrowed my decision down to 2 choices. One comes with a 150W modeling light and the other comes with a 250W light. All other features being equal, does a 250W light make that big a difference compared to the 150? Thanks.

TheToad

[Curtis N]

It'll be about 67% brighter.

Brighter is better.

I replaced the standard 100w modeling bulbs on my B1600s with 250w halogens. Do this at your own risk, using common sense.

[TMR Design]

I can tell you from personal experience that learning to use modeling lights that are not very bright actually teaches you to 'see' the light better. I learned with 100 watt modeling lights and never had a problem. I understand that people want bright lights but I just pulled the curtains over the windows, turned the room lights off and I could see highlights, shadows and contrast without any problem. I would not base a purchase on the brightness of the modeling lights. 150 watt modeling lights is plenty to build your shots and see everything you need to see. Others may disagree but I've spent countless hours with 100 watt bulbs and it taught me a lot and I never sat around thinking about higher power lamps. I worked with it and learned to SEE the light.

My 2 cents.

[Wilt]

Robert expounds an opinion about lesser output.... Having taken my gear on location jobs, I know that one cannot always simply 'pull the curtains' to dim the setting, and 250w comes in quite handy in those conditions. If you only shoot in 'controlled' circumstances, you will find 150w sufficient. Many flash units with 250w modelling lights have a power control to put the modelling lights on 'high' vs. on 'low'

[TMR Design]

Robert expounds an opinion about lesser output.... Having taken my gear on location jobs, I know that one cannot always simply 'pull the curtains' to dim the setting, and 250w comes in quite handy in those conditions. If you only shoot in 'controlled' circumstances, you will find 150w sufficient. Many flash units with 250w modelling lights have a power control to put the modelling lights on 'high' vs. on 'low'

Correct Wilt. I should have stipulated that my learning experience did come from having a very controllable environment. :D

[ducatiwv]

Is there any benefit by replacing the Ab800 100 watt modeling lights with 150 watt? I m just curious.....

[TMR Design]

Is there any benefit by replacing the Ab800 100 watt modeling lights with 150 watt? I m just curious.....

Sure. It's not much but it helps. When I owned Bees I replaced the 100 watt incandescent's with 150 watt halogens.

[ducatiwv]

Sure. It's not much but it helps. When I owned Bees I replaced the 100 watt incandescent's with 150 watt halogens.

Thanks Robert.....I have 2 ab800's and an ab400, i ll give that a try..

[TMR Design]

Thanks Robert.....I have 2 ab800's and an ab400, i ll give that a try..

Make sure you get proportional modeling lamps. If you're mixing B800's and B400's you want WYSIWYG modeling, so having the same wattage in both strobes throws that off and is not true. Since the B800 is one stop more light than the B400 you could use a 150 watt bulb in the B800 and a 75 watt bulb in the B400 to maintain true WYSIWYG modeling.

[ducatiwv]

Make sure you get proportional modeling lamps. If you're mixing B800's and B400's you want WYSIWYG modeling, so having the same wattage in both strobes throws that off and is not true. Since the B800 is one stop more light than the B400 you could use a 150 watt bulb in the B800 and a 75 watt bulb in the B400 to maintain true WYSIWYG modeling.


Great advice....thanks again Robert

[Wilt]

Make sure you get proportional modeling lamps. If you're mixing B800's and B400's you want WYSIWYG modeling, so having the same wattage in both strobes throws that off and is not true. Since the B800 is one stop more light than the B400 you could use a 150 watt bulb in the B800 and a 75 watt bulb in the B400 to maintain true WYSIWYG modeling.


One flaw in that logic is the fact that Watt is a rating only about the amount electricity consumed, but not about output of light. You need to look at the Lumen rating for light output from a bulb, to determine its proportionality to another bulb.

[Hermes]

One flaw in that logic is the fact that Watt is a rating only about the amount electricity consumed, but not about output of light. You need to look at the Lumen rating for light output from a bulb, to determine its proportionality to another bulb.

Beyond that, does anyone really use the modelling lights to judge their ratios?

I suppose it would be possible in a pitch black studio with no room lighting to throw off the fill level but

(a) that seems dangerous enough for me to never want to try it.
(b) if you're metering, surely you'll know the results you'll get anyway.


My modelling lights are usually either set to full (for big softboxes this is the only way to get enough light out of them to see the pattern easily) or turned on full to position them and then turned off or onto minimum (for Fresnels, tight honeycombs, e.t.c. where overheating can be an issue).

[TMR Design]

Beyond that, does anyone really use the modelling lights to judge their ratios?

I suppose it would be possible in a pitch black studio with no room lighting to throw off the fill level but

(a) that seems dangerous enough for me to never want to try it.
(b) if you're metering, surely you'll know the results you'll get anyway.


My modelling lights are usually either set to full (for big softboxes this is the only way to get enough light out of them to see the pattern easily) or turned on full to position them and then turned off or onto minimum (for Fresnels, tight honeycombs, e.t.c. where overheating can be an issue).

I absolutely use modeling lights and at times I don't care about the ratio. If Im using my eyes to determine what looks good and to build a shot I can see exactly what I'm going to get. Perhaps that doesn't work for you but in my studio I never have to take test shots to know what I'm going to get. My modeling lights do exactly what they're supposed to do and make my life easy and allow me to be creative without all the test shots.

I use my meter to determine overall exposure or to make sure I don't have halos or flare, and to make sure my edge and hair lights are where I want them to be based on my taking aperture, but for my main and fill light sources I enjoy using modeling lights and never take a shot and think "that's not what I thought it was going to look like."

[TMR Design]

One flaw in that logic is the fact that Watt is a rating only about the amount electricity consumed, but not about output of light. You need to look at the Lumen rating for light output from a bulb, to determine its proportionality to another bulb.

Yep, I know that Wilt. I was generalizing and didn't check the lumens before I posted. Obviously is has to be based on output.

But, responding again to Hermes.... perhaps the modeling lights are not going to be precise but if you're building a shot with strobes of different power levels then you're modeling lights mean nothing as opposed to being slightly off. I'd rather have then close then no relation to each other.

[Wilt]

Yep, I know that Wilt. I was generalizing and didn't check the lumens before I posted. Obviously is has to be based on output.

But, responding again to Hermes.... perhaps the modeling lights are not going to be precise but if you're building a shot with strobes of different power levels then you're modeling lights mean nothing as opposed to being slightly off. I'd rather have then close then no relation to each other.

I was directing the comment to newbie lurking, who might not be aware of the lack of direct relationship between the Watt rating of a bulb and the light output. :cool:

Responding to Hermes, I will side with Robert on the usage of modelling lights...if I am in a standardized studio setting where I have already determined light output for various power levels, the modelling light becomes a shortcut visual confirmation that I have the right power level selected. Then I know that what I see is mimiced in the actual photo, and I am simply using power settings without metering all over again.

[silvex]

Keep also in mind heat dissipation. If the strobed flash was NOT designed to withstand it. It will melt. Give the manufacturer a call and see if this is appropitate.

[Hermes]

Yep, I know that Wilt. I was generalizing and didn't check the lumens before I posted. Obviously is has to be based on output.

But, responding again to Hermes.... perhaps the modeling lights are not going to be precise but if you're building a shot with strobes of different power levels then you're modeling lights mean nothing as opposed to being slightly off. I'd rather have then close then no relation to each other.

I was directing the comment to newbie lurking, who might not be aware of the lack of direct relationship between the Watt rating of a bulb and the light output. :cool:

Responding to Hermes, I will side with Robert on the usage of modelling lights...if I am in a standardized studio setting where I have already determined light output for various power levels, the modelling light becomes a shortcut visual confirmation that I have the right power level selected. Then I know that what I see is mimiced in the actual photo, and I am simply using power settings without metering all over again.

Hmm.... interesting. How do you deal with all the enclosed modifiers like snoots, honeycombs, Fresnels, gelled reflectors, e.t.c.?

I know my style is mostly to blame as I have grids and gels on pretty much everything but I find that when using the above modifiers with high modelling lamp-settings, the lights heat up very quickly which isn't exactly what you want when you're shooting fast with the heaters all on high for the sake of the models. Also, are your strobes the only lights on in the entire studio? if not don't you find that the shadows look overly filled because of the ambient?

Personally, I find that the image I have of my ratios in my head is closer to what I see in the final image than the image depicted by the modelling lights, even in proportional mode. The modelling lamps tend to be a bit more specular with harder shadow-edges than the flash bulbs themselves which can be irritating, especially when you're trying to precisely position a polished reflector like the maxi-spot I mentioned before.

[Wilt]

Hermes,
As I stated before, for me it is quick visual confirmation of relative settings, I am not assessing 3:1 vs. 4:1, etc, I am merely confirming that fill is dialed down relative to the key light. I care not about the precision...if I dialed down the Key, but got distracted and forgot to also dial down the Fill, I can see that quickly and I know I need to go back and check my power control settings on the Fill.
In any event, with bright ambient that is contributing to both key and fill areas, not changing the balance of one to the other (which I am not assessing), it is merely the overall level of illumination not the balance which is altered.

As for overheating with grids and gells, I quickly set up the lights, check visualization and then turn off the modelling light as soon as I can, before shooting.

[TMR Design]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Wilt and I do the same thing with the modeling lights. When I don't need to check the shot and levels are set then the modeling lights can go off. When I am using the modeling light to initially get my levels, check shadows and specular highlights then they are the only lights on in the room.

I'm always aware of heat and heat buildup but have never had an issue or problem with any of the modifiers I use. I use grids and don't have any thermal issues with my Elinchrom's. I don't use snoots so I can't say whether they would be a problem.

[Hermes]

OK... now I'm with you - you only use the proportional mode for the initial setup. That makes more sense and is pretty much what I do - the open modifiers go on full-power modelling, the enclosed ones get turned off.

Robert, if you ever do get yourself a maxi-spot or something similar, be aware that in these circumstances, the modelling light doesn't really show you what you actually get which is one of the reasons I try not to rely on the modelling lights for accuracy and tend towards composing and visualising the lighting in my head based on what I know my modifiers will do.

[TMR Design]

OK... now I'm with you - you only use the proportional mode for the initial setup. That makes more sense and is pretty much what I do - the open modifiers go on full-power modelling, the enclosed ones get turned off.

Robert, if you ever do get yourself a maxi-spot or something similar, be aware that in these circumstances, the modelling light doesn't really show you what you actually get which is one of the reasons I try not to rely on the modelling lights for accuracy and tend towards composing and visualising the lighting in my head based on what I know my modifiers will do.

Thanks Hermes. I'm definitely going to keep that in mind. I know what you're saying because I find that to be true of background lights. What you see on your background never looks like what you'll see when the lights are fired.

[Jim M]

No amount of metering will show you where the shadows fall.

[Hermes]

My point was about light ratios rather light placement and as I also mentioned, the modelling light does not always mimic the behaviour of the flash tube. This is pretty common knowledge amongst studio photographers I've worked with - I can only think that the reason more people on the net don't take it into consideration is that they mainly use big, diffuse modifiers. If you start using bare reflectors, fresnels, dishes, snoots, e.t.c. for position-critical work you can't fail to notice it.

In the end you can't rely on the modelling lights as anything other than a rough guide for either power or placement. You're better off knowing your modifiers and your ratios properly so you always know what you're going to get in the final image.

[TMR Design]

My point was about light ratios rather light placement and as I also mentioned, the modelling light does not always mimic the behaviour of the flash tube. This is pretty common knowledge amongst studio photographers I've worked with - I can only think that the reason more people on the net don't take it into consideration is that they mainly use big, diffuse modifiers. If you start using bare reflectors, fresnels, dishes, snoots, e.t.c. for position-critical work you can't fail to notice it.

In the end you can't rely on the modelling lights as anything other than a rough guide for either power or placement. You're better off knowing your modifiers and your ratios properly so you always know what you're going to get in the final image.

I agree with you Hermes. I should have said in my earlier posts that when I use modeling lights to see highlight, shadow and specularity it's because I am using large, soft light sources that are diffused. This generally involves my main light, fill source, hair light and any reflector fill. Once the grids go on for accent,edge lighting or background lights then modeling lights don't tell the whole story.