rcarey wrote:They are the equivalent of 100 watts of regular lighting, but only use 23 watts themselves. They are the light of daylight, not a florecent or tungsten, so I thought it'd work well. I will be using 4 bulbs to light my subject(s). Plus my own flash. Is this possible, or am I grasping at an unattainable goal. Love to hear your feedback.
I would suggest that you do some experimentation with the bulbs. Like Curtis, I believe the bulbs you are referring to are in fact flourescent lamps. They probably switch at the power line frequency. If so, you will have some problems with shutter speeds other than 1/30th, 1/60th, and 1/120th second (in the US or other areas with 60Hz power).
Here's the test to run: Set up the camera on a tripod and aim at a tabletop subject illuminated ONLY by the flourescent lamp(s). Turn off any standard incandescent lamps in the area. Shoot a series of photos at the highest shutter speed you can get with the lens wide open. That shutter speed should be significantly faster than 1/120th second to really have the test be useful. If what I suspect is true, you will have a series of photos with varying brightness and varying color cast.
Some flourescent lamps have high-frequency ballasts and will not have the problem I describe above. I can't begin to tell you what lamps to look for to get the high-frequency ballasts.
Conventional (non-flourescent) "hot" lights are fine to do photographic work with, especially since you can easily compensate for the color cast (white balance) when using most modern digital cameras. You do have the heat to contend with, and therefore your subject may suffer.
I would NOT recommend mixing flash with any other light source except true daylight. You will often have very difficult-to-control white balance problems when mixing light sources.
. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? 
