Continuous Lighting Kits? Help

[grimm5577]

I am looking to pick up a studio lighting set-up/kit. I don't really want to break the bank. But i don't want something that will be cheap and break and fail after 2 weeks.

I've been looking at them online and reading some reviews but i'm just not exactly sure about them, some kits look very cheap while others in the same price range seem nice.

what is the difference between a photoflood and a quartz system?
does one run hotter thant the other?

i've been comparing the following kits:
Interfit Stellar x tungsten 2 light twin softbox kit (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/569785-REG/Interfit_INT188_Stellar_X_Tungsten_Two.html)
lowel tota two light kit (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/248530-REG/Lowel_TLKQ_Tota_Light_Two_Light_Kit.html)
smith victor k42U toolbox tungsten light kit (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/157948-REG/Smith_Victor_401494A_K42U_Toolbox_Tungsten_Light.h tml)
Westcott PB8500 Photo basics (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542063-REG/Westcott_512_PB500_Photo_Basics_Two.html)

any other information, adivce, suggestions would be great.
thanks in advance :)

[tim]

Continuous lights make people squint and sweat. I'd save up for flash.

[Titus213]

I think either one of these would be a better investment.

http://www.alienbees.com/beginner.html

http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/CF0502K1/

[FlashZebra]

Unless you are taking images of things that do not move, or need lights that will sort of work for still photography and work well for video, get a flash based system.

Enjoy! Lon

[Kristy]

Second vote for the AB's.. you will be happier in the long run if you have flash strobes.

Just buy one if it's all you can afford. Some amazing images have been made using one light and a reflector... see the lighting forum for a thread with several amazing examples. :)

[Jason C]

If you are planning to further your studio photography, strobes will probably be your best bet in the long run--as others have stated.

As for myself, I do not have any long term studio photography goals but I wanted a basic continuous system to use when needed instead of rigging up my home lamps...that gets tedious and tiresome.

So I bought an RPS photoflood kit at Canoga Camera for a tick over $300-- http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=37547 --and it has been a joy to use as oppossed to my prior Mickey Mouse setup. This kit is actually well built and has some nice features.

Yes, this tungsten system gets very hot very quick and can be a bit blinding to your subject. Out of a handful of subjects that I have subjected to my photofloods, only my wife complained...

So, if a continuous system is only a temporary stop on your studio photograph road, then consider what these other knowledgable posters have suggested and go strobe.

Hope this helps...(Man these photofloods are hot!)

Jason C

[grimm5577]

i will look into the strobe idea, the reason i was thinking continuous was because i shoot mainly interior architecture so blinding some one wasn't even a thought. but i guess i overlooked the versatility of a strobe set. I just didn't want to end up with having to buy huge heavy battery packs, and chargers and what not. i'll look into the AB's... i looked at them before but thought i could get a decent package for around the same price.

[Barb42]

http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/
Check out this site for really good info. I also use Westcott Spider lites - 50watt bulbs work best - but added speedlights for ease of travel, off site use, and storage. Nice thing about strobist style is that you can start cheap and move up easily as you can afford it. I have some interfit continous - they work, but its still easier to go strobist.

[Titus213]

It won't be necessary to buy any battery packs unless you want to go on location and there is no AC available. One nice thing about strobes is that they CAN be run from battery if necessary. Hot lights would run down a battery rather quickly.

[grimm5577]

thanks titus, and everyone else, I think I may end up with the AB set that was recommended.

[Calbeee]

continuous lights are bad for ur model and it's hot

[grimm5577]

my models = architecture... i don;t think they mind.
but thanks :)

[Brett]

my models = architecture... i don;t think they mind.
but thanks :)

But still, there's no reason to have a continuous flood of light, when you only need a brief flash to make an image.

[Titus213]

Yes, but wysiwyg is real nice too.

[grimm5577]

Yes, but wysiwyg is real nice too.
that is exactly why i was thinking about going the continuous route. being able to see reflection, glare, or shadows and resolving those before taking a shot i would think would be helpful.

either way, a strobe with a modeling light is probably the avenue I'll be heading, another friend mentioned that the continuous lights become fragile when hot and could easily break the filiment if they were bumped or something.

[Titus213]

I agree, I think the strobes will be much more versatile.

[sfaust]

Continuous lighting is pretty common in interior architectural photography. It solves a lot of issues with color balance, and as you said, the models don't mind. WYSIWYG is also a plus, which can really help speed up the learning process for people new to lighting.

If you plan on interiors as your mainstay, continuous isn't a bad way to go. But if you will do any significant shooting with people, strobes would be a better choice in the end.

I use both all the time depending on the subjects, and sometimes even mix them for more creative results. If I had to only pick one, it would be strobes, but since I don't have to, I always want both available to me ;)

I have a gallery of images of just continuous lighting setups if interested. Strangely enough, save a couple shots from music videos I've lighted for artists, most of the images are of people. Go figure :)

Continuous lighting gallery (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfaust/sets/72157605253167952/)

[tim]

If you're trying to balance bright daylight outside windows with internal light you'll need strobes.

[Bumgardnern]

If you're trying to balance bright daylight outside windows with internal light you'll need strobes.

Not true at all. If you want to balance tungsten with daylight or to strobe all you have to do is put a gel on the light. If your tungsten light is not strong enough you scrim the outside windows. It works they do it all the time on video sets.

[sfaust]

Correct. But using ND's or Gel's for the windows can get expensive due to the cost of the gels, especially for very large expanses of windows. On motion shoots you have no choice but to have everything corrected at the time you shoot, since its expensive to retouch each frame at 24/30 frames per second. So the expense is justified.

With stills, you can always use tungsten to match the interior lighting, then use multiple exposures to capture the windows separately and combine in post. Faster, more control, less expensive and time consuming, and it works perfectly. Most architectural photographers that I am aware of their procedures (books, blogs, know personally) tend to do it this way.

There always seems to be more than on way to skin a cat with photographic challenges.

[vivala1210]

http://www.profoto.com/

[tim]

Not true at all. If you want to balance tungsten with daylight or to strobe all you have to do is put a gel on the light. If your tungsten light is not strong enough you scrim the outside windows. It works they do it all the time on video sets.

I was talking about quantity of light, not temperature, but both are relevant. I believe it's easier to use strobes to match outside light levels than to "gel/scrim" every window.

[sfaust]

Very true Tim, one isn't going to match the power of the sun with continuous lighting in any practical way. But in using strobes to match the outside lighting, it almost always ends up overpowering the lighting designed into the building by the architects.

The lighting is a careful design element from an architects point of view, and its generally preferred by them to capture that in an image, than to replace it with some other lighting. How the light spreads across a room from the fixtures, the fixtures design, the color of the light, interaction with paint colors, materials chosen, and so on. All decisions an architect makes in the designing a space, and which I'm sure they want reflected in the final image.

So to me, capturing the existing lighting is very important in order to capture the architects vision. Strobes tend to 'replace' the lighting design of the architects vision with a completely different one. And IMO, thats the wrong way to go if one wants the architect to say, "Yes, thats exactly how I envisioned that space! You caught it beautifully".

Both ways work, no question. But I feel one is more accurate to the space and overall design.

[tim]

Ah yes, you're talking more high end that I know about for architecture photography, in that case scrims on the windows would be best, or just shooting at dusk.