Why not use this lighting in studio

I use LED bulbs in light stands for continuous lighting in studio.
Rather than using gels, why would these http://www.amazon.com/​dp/B00P6WAEHQ?psc=1 not be better and more flexible

Because it is only 7 Watts?

Dah...according to the description ..."comparable to a 60W incandescent bulb"

chauncey wrote in post #17714481
Dah...according to the description ..."comparable to a 60W incandescent bulb"

What is the CRI. And how does that compare with the LED's you already use and are happy with.

Affordable LED's aren't up to the job for most photographers.

chauncey wrote in post #17714435
I use LED bulbs in light stands for continuous lighting in studio.
Rather than using gels, why would these http://www.amazon.com/​dp/B00P6WAEHQ?psc=1 not be better and more flexible

Have you ever put a single 60 watt lightbulb in a decent sized softbox?

chauncey wrote in post #17714481
Dah...according to the description ..."comparable to a 60W incandescent bulb"

And, in the distant past when incandescent lighting dominated in the studio (before studio flash became commonplace) they used to need 500W - 1000W lighting, not 60W.

In my earliest photography days, I tried to use a budget set of studio lights which had 60W modelling lamp. Shooting on site in a place with large open windows (no shades drawn) I could not even SEE a notable difference when I turned on/off the modelling light! Traded that light set in and purchase something with 250W modelling lamps after that...even 150W modelling lamps are just 'getting by'...ask users of AB or White Lightning, who replace the standard 100W lamp with 150W bulbs (because AB says it is OK to do that without creating a fire hazard -- but not more) to be able to better see the lighting placement effects.

A well known photographer does workshops, and he uses LED lights -- in a DARKENED ROOM -- to illuminate his subject when shooting demonstration photos which are then projected for the viewing audience at the workshop.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1440736 was taken in a darkened room using a single candle.
If a single candle works...why not a relatively dim LED colored bulb?

chauncey wrote in post #17714730
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1440736 was taken in a darkened room using a single candle.
If a single candle works...why not a relatively dim LED colored bulb?

It depends what you're shooting! I'm not sure many of my subjects could sit for 13 seconds?

Nay sayers not withstanding, it is an interesting question. It all comes down to how much light you need to project to get the look you want. If the ambient is low, and the subject is static, then you might not need too many. As you move away from those two situations, you may find that you need too many to be practical.

I expect that there will come a time when this approach (variable output LED) is common. Let's call it 15 years. Be sure to come back to this thread then and see if I was right.

tandemhearts wrote in post #17714840
I expect that there will come a time when this approach (variable output LED) is common. Let's call it 15 years. Be sure to come back to this thread then and see if I was right.

yes, LED technology is still far too young, as it is in its relative infancy for lighting applications. Its lumens-per-watt is up there, but its output of light is still relatively limited compared to the other light output technologies, high light output 1000W incandescent, 200W equivalent CFL, today's puny 60W equivalent LED. We have to have an array of LEDs for equivalent light output

Phil V wrote in post #17714738
It depends what you're shooting! I'm not sure many of my subjects could sit for 13 seconds?

Suitable for ghosting effects ...

The real problem of continuous light in the studio is blinding your subject in a way identical to sitting them in the midday sun. LED technology merely avoids cooking them as well. At ISO 100, Sunny 16 says you need 1/100s @ f/16, or (my favorite) 1/200s @ f/11. I find f/11 necessary for tight headshots and for fashion shoots, while 1/200s is actually kind of inadequate for anything dynamic. So, the power of the sun is both insufficient and leaves your subject squinting into the glare. The technology breakthrough needed for continuous is not light generation but, rather, sensor performance. With studio-grade ISO 3200, you can illuminate at EV 10 instead of EV 15—a big difference for your subject's retina. Until then, we have good ol' Xenon flash lamps: one of the better inventions of the 20th century.

RicoTudor wrote in post #17715210
The real problem of continuous light in the studio is blinding your subject in a way identical to sitting them in the midday sun. ... Until then, we have good ol' Xenon flash lamps: one of the better inventions of the 20th century.

^^^ agree fully, as it is a fact of life that squinting into bright constant light is really the problem, so generating the light source with incandescent bulb or LED (a loose context of the OP) is immaterial, apart from the heat issue (shooting in the heat of summer...a blessing in winter snows!) Both make the subject squint!

But that brings us back to the other truth, that a 'bright' LED source today is nowhere close to making anyone squint (except maybe Count Dracula).