Is your modeling light output enough?

I'm dealing with 50 watt lamps in my Ranger RX lights. There effectiveness depends on the ambient light and the modifier I'm using, which, at times means not effective.

What's others experiences? What's a realistic output?

Thanks

150 watts is usually enough to do the job in a well lit studio and IMO, is the ideal wattage for the majority of situations that would require the use of a modeling light. Anything less and its difficult to see the results without dropping ambient lighting down, especially if using large modifiers.

50 watts, to me, would be completely worthless unless dealing with very low ambient lighting or up close with small modifiers.

Though, I will admit...I rarely use modeling lights anymore unless its to help achieve focus in low ambient situations. I almost never use them for judging light fall off anymore except in rare instances or when using foreign modifiers.

The Rangers' are deliberately low. It's a location strobe - the assumption is it will be used where there's also daylight so you'll have no chance of proportional modelling from the lamp. Above all the drain on the battery is huge.

The brighter the better is my experience. Stops down the model's pupils, helps you distinguish your lighting more clearly from any ambient and helps with focussing. Some of my more powerful heads are running 650w and 1000w lamps and aside from how quickly they burn out I can't fault them.

JayCee Images wrote in post #11771248
150 watts is usually enough to do the job in a well lit studio and IMO, is the ideal wattage for the majority of situations that would require the use of a modeling light. Anything less and its difficult to see the results without dropping ambient lighting down, especially if using large modifiers.

50 watts, to me, would be completely worthless unless dealing with very low ambient lighting or up close with small modifiers.

Though, I will admit...I rarely use modeling lights anymore unless its to help achieve focus in low ambient situations. I almost never use them for judging light fall off anymore except in rare instances or when using foreign modifiers.

To me at least, a well-lit studio is one with the absolute minimum ambient light possible on the set.

JayCee Images wrote in post #11771248
150 watts is usually enough to do the job in a well lit studio and IMO, is the ideal wattage for the majority of situations that would require the use of a modeling light. Anything less and its difficult to see the results without dropping ambient lighting down, especially if using large modifiers.

50 watts, to me, would be completely worthless unless dealing with very low ambient lighting or up close with small modifiers.

Though, I will admit...I rarely use modeling lights anymore unless its to help achieve focus in low ambient situations. I almost never use them for judging light fall off anymore except in rare instances or when using foreign modifiers.

Thanks for the response.

I take it you have become familiar enough with your lighting that you can set up without using modeling lights. Do you meter to confirm your lighting spread from each source?

What you see is what you get would be nice, but it doesn't sound realistic for my situation.

Thanks Hermes.

windpig wrote in post #11771315
Thanks for the response.

I take it you have become familiar enough with your lighting that you can set up without using modeling lights. Do you meter to confirm your lighting spread from each source?

What you see is what you get would be nice, but it doesn't sound realistic for my situation.

I have never relied on modeling lights for a WYSIWYG result... its just not practical in most situations, especially when efficiency differences from one modifier to the next comes into play. IMO, they are good for nothing other than seeing where the light is directing and where its falling off or using it for assisted focusing...though, im sure you will get varying opinions on that.

I have a decent light meter but honestly, it almost never leaves my gear bag. Most shoots I do, I have plenty of time to experiment and see what works and what doesn't so I'm not overly concerned about getting my light spot on the first try. The more you shoot, the better you will be at judging light fall off and power settings. I can more or less picture what the light is going to do in my head and can usually judge my light settings within a stop or so. In a situation where time cannot be wasted, then by all means, a meter is a necessity.

Thanks JayCee

JayCee Images wrote in post #11771526
I have never relied on modeling lights for a WYSIWYG result... its just not practical in most situations, especially when efficiency differences from one modifier to the next comes into play. IMO, they are good for nothing other than seeing where the light is directing and where its falling off or using it for assisted focusing...though, im sure you will get varying opinions on that.

I have a decent light meter but honestly, it almost never leaves my gear bag. Most shoots I do, I have plenty of time to experiment and see what works and what doesn't so I'm not overly concerned about getting my light spot on the first try. The more you shoot, the better you will be at judging light fall off and power settings. I can more or less picture what the light is going to do in my head and can usually judge my light settings within a stop or so. In a situation where time cannot be wasted, then by all means, a meter is a necessity.

Surely an inefficient modifier will reduce the modelling light power and the flash power by the same amount. This is the idea behind proportional modelling.

I agree though that your ability to see ratios and quality of light with the modelling lamps is limited and experience is much more important in knowing what you'll get. The main function of the modelling light is to help aim the light accurately, see where it's spilling, e.t.c.

Hermes wrote in post #11771897
Surely an inefficient modifier will reduce the modelling light power and the flash power by the same amount. This is the idea behind proportional modelling.

Surely in a perfect world but there are more factors that come into play besides modifier efficiency, but I threw it out there as an example.

Either way, I just plain don't rely on modeling light to give me a WYSIWYG result because more often than not, it just doesn't work all that well. For getting a general idea of where your lights going, they work great though. I learned off camera flash with speed lights and did not have the capability of a modeling light so I have learned to do without it. It just adds another unnecessary variable into the equation that I would rather not fight to get it to work in every situation.

True WYSIWYG modeling was not what I considered a reasonable expectation.

Seeing how the shadow from the nose and chin is cast by the key light is what I would be expecting given a reasonable environment for the wattage of the modeling lamp unmodified or with a fairly hard light modifier.

I've only used speedlights without modeling up til a few months ago, I figure anything that helps aim the light is a step above that.

windpig wrote in post #11772494
True WYSIWYG modeling was not what I considered a reasonable expectation.

Seeing how the shadow from the nose and chin is cast by the key light is what I would be expecting given a reasonable environment for the wattage of the modeling lamp unmodified or with a fairly hard light modifier.

I've only used speedlights without modeling up til a few months ago, I figure anything that helps aim the light is a step above that.

That's one of the areas where you can't rely on modelling lights to be accurate. The modelling lamp is a tiny, (almost pin -like in some cases) light source that protrudes at the front. The flash tube is larger, ring-shaped and set further back. The modelling lamp will give you a rough idea of shadows produced but it will not match the flashtube's shadow definition accurately.

A good example of this is larger gridded reflectors. I have plenty of modifiers where the modelling lamp projects the mesh pattern of the grid but the flashtube doesn't. This is one of the reasons I fit permanent deflectors to things like my maxilites and square 44s.

Hermes wrote in post #11772603
That's one of the areas where you can't rely on modelling lights to be accurate. The modelling lamp is a tiny, (almost pin -like in some cases) light source that protrudes at the front. The flash tube is larger, ring-shaped and set further back. The modelling lamp will give you a rough idea of shadows produced but it will not match the flashtube's shadow definition accurately.

A good example of this is larger gridded reflectors. I have plenty of modifiers where the modelling lamp projects the mesh pattern of the grid but the flashtube doesn't. This is one of the reasons I fit permanent deflectors to things like my maxilites and square 44s.

But if your goal is simply to visualize the placement of the shadow, for example to reproduce classis Rembrandt lighting, the modelling light is sufficient. The flash tube might well be more diffuse, but the central modelling light has the same placement even if its edge definition is different. Besides, all this becomes moot when the head is in a softbox.

Hermes wrote in post #11771290
The brighter the better is my experience. Stops down the model's pupils, helps you distinguish your lighting more clearly from any ambient and helps with focussing. Some of my more powerful heads are running 650w and 1000w lamps and aside from how quickly they burn out I can't fault them.

I prefer dilated pupils and large soft catch lights, especially in female models..

I tossed away the idea of proportional modeling lights.

These days I keep accent modeling lights on full power to make sure I see any mischief they make through the viewfinder (such as a hairlight suddenly touching the ear when I tell the subject to tip her head back). If I had the accent modeling light set proportionately, it would be so dim that I'd likely not be able to notice it through the viewfinder touching the ear.

For the same reason, I turn off the fill modeling light completely, so that I see the shadows of the main light clearly through the viewfinder. Chimping a couple of shots proves out what the sensor is recording with the actual flash much more accurately than the eye can possibly see the modeling lights.