Another DIY light box, with build and test pics

Hogster86 wrote in post #5045732
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd shots were taken with the 40D. Because of the large sensor, I needed to use a very small aperture (F22) to get the DOF that I wanted. This entailed a long shutter speed.

The 4th and 5th shots were taken with my Canon Powershot A620 (P&S), and with it's tiny sensor, F8 was plenty to give a very wide DOF.

Hence the difference in shutter speeds

On the lighting side of it, those are two 10W fluorescent lights I think they give out about 50W of light .... so about 10 times less than the lights you're using!

This is no problem as it just means I need a longer shutter speed And I always use a tripod, remote trigger and LiveView to minimise any vibrations ...

Cheers!

David

Ah, that explains it!
I didn't realise there was such a difference in light output.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Hogster86 wrote in post #5045732
On the lighting side of it, those are two 10W fluorescent lights I think they give out about 50W of light .... so about 10 times less than the lights you're using!

David

Are you saying that the 2 500watt lights that most of us are using may be overkill? Is there any other type of lighting that maybe we can use instead?

I've managed with 2 x 150W halogens. Once you have your camera on a sturdy tripod it doesn't really matter whether your exposure is for 1/10 second or 10 seconds.

Sample results - https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=3598071&pos​tcount=985

Setup - https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=3601159&pos​tcount=993

Hogster86 wrote in post #5044625
Canon 40D with 17-55mm and 70-200mm F4 IS

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Is this two photos merged together? It looks like the 70-200 is too smal for the camera. Eh, maybe it's my imagination.

Photoguy6405: I think that's the f/4L not the 2.8 as you have.... probably why you think it looks so small!

newbietoslr wrote in post #5045993
Are you saying that the 2 500watt lights that most of us are using may be overkill? Is there any other type of lighting that maybe we can use instead?

Hey there,

I would say it's an overkill yes You really don't need pump a kilowatt of energy into lighting a box

As tdodd mentioned, once you've got the camera on a tripod, it doesn't matter how long the exposure is The reason I went for fluorescent strip lights is to give a nice even light across the entire wall/ceiling of the box ...


David

PS. photoguy - It's the F4 as Noise_Ninja pointed out

I got to build myself one of thies!!

Hogster86 wrote in post #5046886
Hey there,

I would say it's an overkill yes You really don't need pump a kilowatt of energy into lighting a box

As tdodd mentioned, once you've got the camera on a tripod, it doesn't matter how long the exposure is The reason I went for fluorescent strip lights is to give a nice even light across the entire wall/ceiling of the box ...

David

PS. photoguy - It's the F4 as Noise_Ninja pointed out

David,

I know that most are lighting from outside the box. If I was to get 2 of these strip lights, is it safe to put on the inside of the box?

I know you have it that way, but you also built a sturdy a** box, while most of us have built the foam core one.

Hogster86 wrote in post #5046886
Hey there,

I would say it's an overkill yes You really don't need pump a kilowatt of energy into lighting a box

As tdodd mentioned, once you've got the camera on a tripod, it doesn't matter how long the exposure is The reason I went for fluorescent strip lights is to give a nice even light across the entire wall/ceiling of the box ...

David

PS. photoguy - It's the F4 as Noise_Ninja pointed out

For some reason I thought the f4 was almost the same size as my f2.8. Oh well. I stand corrected.

Anyway, I bought the switchable 250w/500w halogen work lights from Sears and in hindsight I'm glad I did. I have found times that I wanted the full-blown 500w on each side, and I've found instances where I wanted less (250w), or even a mixture depending on what kinds of shadows it might throw. It's kind of nice to have the flexibility.

Hi Everyone! *waves*

I have been lurking this thread for a few days. Then when we got an amazing amount of rain today I decided to give this DIY light box a try. So needless to say this is my first attempt. Can't thank the creator enough for this, it's great fun and challenges my technical abilities for sure seeing how I have only been photographing seriously for 3 months.

All were shot with the following gear: Canon 40D 70mm - 200mm f/2.8L USM and my DIY lightbox is exactly like all of the others made from the foam board using the 500watt utility lights. Hope you like these... C&C are welcomed and appreciated.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

DigitalDawn wrote in post #5050663
Hi Everyone! *waves*

I have been lurking this thread for a few days. Then when we got an amazing amount of rain today I decided to give this DIY light box a try. So needless to say this is my first attempt. Can't thank the creator enough for this, it's great fun and challenges my technical abilities for sure seeing how I have only been photographing seriously for 3 months.

All were shot with the following gear: Canon 40D 70mm - 200mm f/2.8L USM and my DIY lightbox is exactly like all of the others made from the foam board using the 500watt utility lights. Hope you like these... C&C are welcomed and appreciated.

Thanks for looking!

Those are awesome! Nice background and I love the smoke effect. Dry ice?

Now just gel up a flash and hit the smoke with it!

DDCSD wrote in post #5050685
Those are awesome! Nice background and I love the smoke effect. Dry ice?
Now just gel up a flash and hit the smoke with it!

Actually its not dry ice, its a Mister, it came with a dragon fountain I have. I took the fountain apart and used the mister over to the side for this shot. The background paper is wrapping paper (black/gray).

I was thinking about getting a black light and placing it up front.
Would gels be a better choice?

Thanks for the comment, I had a blast doing this!
Oh and I made a huge mess with the water! LOL!!!

DigitalDawn wrote in post #5050722
I was thinking about getting a black light and placing it up front.
Would gels be a better choice?

I honestly don't know. I'm just imagining in my head that it would be a neat effect with a green or reddish gel, or even one of each color on each side.

Okay thanks, I may give the gels a try seeing how it would allow me to try all kinds of colors verses the blacklight which would only throw purple. Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

Awesome effect Dawn!!


David