Josh C Photography wrote:
So I'm trying to build a decent home studio.. right now I have a 1000 watt halogen lamp stand and one 500w halogen lamp.

But I'm looking to change my lights to fluorescent since halogens are not the best option.

There is a 2 set light stand with umbrellas that I'm considering to get, but my question is how much wattage would be suitable to have decent lighting from them?

they come with 85 watt bulbs, would that be enough lighting or would i need to upgrade/consider something more expensive?

The problem with continuous light is the issue of shutter speed and stopping camera blur or your subject blur.   1000watt and 500 watt lights are the minimum you may want to use.  When you add modifiers like umbrellas, bounce and diffusion, it cuts the light down drastically.    That's why strobes are typically a favorite of people shooters.

Typically, you don't have the issue of color balance or camera shake with strobes.

Florescent are okay but unless you want to shoot at ISOs of 300 on up. you'll find that most don't have the output to avoid slower shutter speeds.  Also, I find their color balance a bit dicey.  They're fine for some video applications. 

I took two 500watt florescent lights bounced off a a 4'x6' white card for a video talking head shoot.  the light was fine.
ISO320. The exposure was 1/30th at f4.0.   My camera was on a tripod.

I like to hand hold for portraits and that exposure, would NOT be what I'd want for ISO, and shutter speed.   

85 watt bulbs for most shooting, are a waste of time for key light use unless you want a certain look. .... in my humble opinion.

Josh C Photography wrote:
So I'm trying to build a decent home studio.. right now I have a 1000 watt halogen lamp stand and one 500w halogen lamp.

But I'm looking to change my lights to fluorescent since halogens are not the best option.

There is a 2 set light stand with umbrellas that I'm considering to get, but my question is how much wattage would be suitable to have decent lighting from them?

they come with 85 watt bulbs, would that be enough lighting or would i need to upgrade/consider something more expensive?

Depends on............
What ISO you want to shot at
What aperture you want to shoot at
What shutter speed you want to shoot at
Shooting handheld vs using a tripod. 
Ext

Example single 300 watt tungsten light
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31645348 18+
Canon 7D ISO 800 F 2.5 at 1/250th

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 56df2d.jpg 18+
HP5+ 4x5 film 1SO 1600 F 11 at 1/25th or F16 at 1/10th

Josh C Photography wrote:
But I'm looking to change my lights to fluorescent since halogens are not the best option.

Why are halogens not the best option? They have a CRI of 100 (the same as the sun), whereas CFL's have terrible color.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
85 watt bulbs for most shooting, are a waste of time for key light use unless you want a certain look. .... in my humble opinion.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Why are halogens not the best option? They have a CRI of 100 (the same as the sun), whereas CFL's have terrible color.

Fred Gerhart wrote:
Strobes are not always the light source of choice. For example if one is doing fine art photography then a certain amount of light falloff is highly desirable and it would simply take forever to get a strobe setup flagged correctly to do the shoot. The modeling lamps in strobes do not accurately reflect the strobes power. They try but fail.

Constant lighting on the other hand is much faster to setup because it is "what you see is what you get lighting". However the downside is its tough if you need lots of light as usually the fluorescence's lack sufficient power.

I use 250W and 500W photo floods when shooting constant light. However they are beasts in that a tremendous amount of heat is generated and the blub usually only lasts about 10 hours before burnout occurs.

I also use CFL's. But they usually requires very fast glass as there is usually not enough light. The other challenge is that with CFL's the light has to be very close to the subject.

Light falls off with strobes exactly like continuous light.  With even a little bit of practice, you'll have a good idea of where to start out.

And don't think that your eyes won't fool you with hot lights.  You may not see the falloff like the camera will.  And judging by your use of the word flags, you may not even be talking about fall off, more about modifying the light.

ontherocks wrote:
i think the llamaing light in a strobe would be better than that?

for my part i'd rather have a window than a constant light. although we do use fluorescents for shooting products. but fluorescents can get weirdly green in the shadows.

I agree totally with both statements.    My strobes can have llamaing lights of either 150watts or 250 watts.     And yes even "daylight" fluorescent lights are not not quite truly daylight. 

Lights that give a clean color temp are a LOT easier to deal with than those that are just close.

Josh C Photography wrote:
[...]
There is a 2 set light stand with umbrellas that I'm considering to get, but my question is how much wattage would be suitable to have decent lighting from them?

they come with 85 watt bulbs, would that be enough lighting or would i need to upgrade/consider something more expensive?

I generally shoot with strobes, but do some video as well...not enough to warrant "good" video light, just something to get by...

I ended up with a couple ~40 inch umbrellas, one with 3- 85 watt CFLs and one with 2- 85 watt bulbs... so 5-  85 watt bulbs bounced from umbrellas, in a small room with a white ceiling will give me ~ 1/80th at f/2.8 at iso 200....

only example still shot online right now is:
18+ https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/27511935 18+

Fred Gerhart wrote:
The modeling lamps in strobes do not accurately reflect the strobes power. They try but fail.

I think there are usually 2 issues with modeling lights in strobes.
1.  Is what you say, they are not as powerful as the strobes..
2.  And this is the bigger influence.  Most strobes have round flash tubes and
     the modeling light is a pinpoint light source so the strobe gives a broader light due to the flash tube's design.

I think that most people don't aim strobes properly. I find i get a LOT more control if I feather the light greatly.  I rarely ever point a light directly at the subject. Doing so usually over lights the scene.  Take that light, turn it 30 degrees or more off the subject, maybe more towards the camera then point it up at a white ceiling.  It still lights the subject but with bounce light.. and looks a lot more (TO ME) natural.

When I observe light in a room, it's rarely anything direct.  It's bouncing off of things outside the windows, then bounces off of walls, furniture, ceilings, inside the room.

I find taking that "non-direct" lighting philosophy helps my lighting look more subtle.  I can still get a pretty light on my subject, but with more subtle control. 

Also I've moved to very low watt/second power settings.  I'm quite happy with settings under 50 w/s.  And that's adding modifiers like softboxes, umbrellas and scrims.

David Parsons wrote:
Light falls off with strobes exactly like continuous light.  With even a little bit of practice, you'll have a good idea of where to start out.

And don't think that your eyes won't fool you with hot lights.  You may not see the falloff like the camera will.  And judging by your use of the word flags, you may not even be talking about fall off, more about modifying the light.

Well-put.  I've found that MOST modifiers work the same on continuous lighting as they do with strobes.  The only exceptions I've found have been barn doors (which are almost the same), and all the modifiers that will burn if you try to use them with a halogen.

There is a difference in the quality of the light, but the modifiers themselves work very much the same way.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
One point to make to the OP.
When deciding on wattage:
Continuous wattage output and watt/second output from a strobe, are NOT the same thing. 

I can shoot with a 25 watt/second strobe, light source and shutter speed, high ISOs are not an issue.

They become a HUGE issue if I was shooting with a 25 watt continuous light source.

Well, they kind of are.  Kind of.  Assuming that everyone rates everything the same way (they don't), a 25 w/s strobe should be the same exposure at any synced flash speed as a 25 watt bulb with a 1 second exposure at the same aperture and ISO.  Different manufacturers rate their lights more or less conservatively, but that's a ballpark figure.

So if everything is on the up-and-up, then a 1000 watt halogen shot at 1/60 should be as bright as a 16.7 w/s strobe.  Which is actually pretty crappy.  That means that if you were using umbrellas,(warning: head math) you'd probably need to be at something like 800 ISO if you wanted to shoot at f/5.6.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
at the price of strobes these days and the availability in Brampton (no shipping from china) there really is no reason to go CFL or halogen unless you are shooting video.

+1. i just got one of these. working great so far and roughly equivalent to a 30,000 watt cfl at my camera's sync speed.
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/230747380434?ssP … 1497.l2649

ordered one of these too, but they're out of stock right now.
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/320889939296?ssP … 1497.l2649

Zack Zoll wrote:
...
Well, they kind of are.  Kind of.  Assuming that everyone rates everything the same way (they don't), a 25 w/s strobe should be the same exposure at any synced flash speed as a 25 watt bulb with a 1 second exposure at the same aperture and ISO.  ...

No.  A 25WS strobe should dissipate the same amount of energy as a 25W light bulb does in one second.

Unless the two have the same efficiency at converting power to lumens, they will produce different amounts of light.   For instance, a 25W compact florescent will generally produce about four times as much light as a traditional 25W incandescent, even though they both dissipate 25W of power.

Even different strobes tend to have different efficiencies.  When the Alien Bee monolights first came out, they were more efficient than the popular pack-and-head systems of the time.  A 160WS Bee, put out as much light as a typical 400WS pack-and-head of that period.

Of course, it's not just the light produced, it's how much get's onto the subject.  This is affected by your modifiers.  A reflector that produces a narrow beam can get more lumens onto the subject's face than a reflector that produces a wide beam.


To be fair, most modern lights within any particular technology will have similar efficiencies.  If you are looking at 300WS monolights, the modifiers probably make more of a difference than brand variation.  However when you are comparing across technologies, you need to look at the light output of the device, not the power dissipated.

Power dissipation does tell you is how much heat you are pumping into your room.  A 100W continuous light source will add 100W of heat to the room, regardless of whether it is 100W of incandescent, 100W of Halogen, 100W of Florescent, or 100W of LED.

Michael Fryd wrote:

No.  A 25WS strobe should dissipate the same amount of energy as a 25W light bulb does in one second.

Unless the two have the same efficiency at converting power to lumens, they will produce different amounts of light.   For instance, a 25W compact florescent will generally produce about four times as much light as a traditional 25W incandescent, even though they both dissipate 25W of power.

Even different strobes tend to have different efficiencies.  When the Alien Bee monolights first came out, they were more efficient than the popular pack-and-head systems of the time.  A 160WS Bee, put out as much light as a typical 400WS pack-and-head of that period.

Of course, it's not just the light produced, it's how much get's onto the subject.  This is affected by your modifiers.  A reflector that produces a narrow beam can get more lumens onto the subject's face than a reflector that produces a wide beam.


To be fair, most modern lights within any particular technology will have similar efficiencies.  If you are looking at 300WS monolights, the modifiers probably make more of a difference than brand variation.  However when you are comparing across technologies, you need to look at the light output of the device, not the power dissipated.

Power dissipation does tell you is how much heat you are pumping into your room.  A 100W continuous light source will add 100W of heat to the room, regardless of whether it is 100W of incandescent, 100W of Halogen, 100W of Florescent, or 100W of LED.

+1

Michael Fryd wrote:
A 100W continuous light source will add 100W of heat to the room, regardless of whether it is 100W of incandescent, 100W of Halogen, 100W of Florescent, or 100W of LED.

Not entirely true.

Equivalent flo and LED sources produce less heat than incandescent, halogen, and HID.

FBY1K

Josh C Photography wrote:
So I'm trying to build a decent home studio.. right now I have a 1000 watt halogen lamp stand and one 500w halogen lamp.

But I'm looking to change my lights to fluorescent since halogens are not the best option.

There is a 2 set light stand with umbrellas that I'm considering to get, but my question is how much wattage would be suitable to have decent lighting from them?

they come with 85 watt bulbs, would that be enough lighting or would i need to upgrade/consider something more expensive?

Flos are great for producing soft light. The light sources are larger than strobe and halogen.

Plus they are (from my experience) best used close to the subject when used with a modifier which enhances the softness and produces nice light fall-off.


Starkey

FBY1K wrote:
Not entirely true.

Equivalent flo and LED sources produce less heat than incandescent, halogen, and HID.

FBY1K

Equivalent in what sense?

FBY1K wrote:

Not entirely true.

Equivalent flo and LED sources produce less heat than incandescent, halogen, and HID.

FBY1K

"Watts" are not a measure of light output.  They are a measure of power, a lot of which is not turned into light.


My point was that a 25WS strobe probably produces a different amount of light than a 25W bulb with a one second exposure.

For instance, let's use a traditional incandescent 100W bulb as our standard.  A typical 100W incandescent light bulb puts out about 1,600 lumen-seconds per second (about 16 lumens per Watt).

A 23W compact fluorescent also puts out about 1,600 lumen-seconds per second (about 70 lumens per Watt).  Thus many would call this a bulb a replacement for a 100W bulb or a 100W equivalent.


Monolights are somewhere in between.  A 160WS B400 puts out about 7,000 lumen seconds (about 44 lumens per Watt).   By the above reasoning, the B400 is a 438W equivalent, because  you would need 438W of incandescent light for one second to get the same light as from a 160WS Alien Bee.



My point is that the term "equivalent Watts" tends to confuse people.  A 100W incandescent is not the same as a 100WS strobe.  The best way of comparing light output is to compare light output.  Look at the lumen rating, not the power input.



When it comes to lights, "Heat Load" is pretty much synonymous with Actual Wattage.

You are correct in that more efficient technologies can produce the same light with less power, then older technologies.  7,000 Lumens of LED light will likely require less power than 7,000 Lumens of incandescent light.

Michael Fryd wrote:

"Watts" are not a measure of light output.  They are a measure of power, a lot of which is not turned into light.


My point was that a 25WS strobe probably produces a different amount of light than a 25W bulb with a one second exposure.

For instance, let's use a traditional incandescent 100W bulb as our standard.  A typical 100W incandescent light bulb puts out about 1,600 lumen-seconds per second (about 16 lumens per Watt).

A 23W compact fluorescent also puts out about 1,600 lumen-seconds per second (about 70 lumens per Watt).  Thus many would call this a bulb a replacement for a 100W bulb or a 100W equivalent.


Monolights are somewhere in between.  A 160WS B400 puts out about 7,000 lumen seconds (about 44 lumens per Watt).   By the above reasoning, the B400 is a 438W equivalent, because  you would need 438W of incandescent light for one second to get the same light as from a 160WS Alien Bee.



My point is that the term "equivalent Watts" tends to confuse people.  A 100W incandescent is not the same as a 100WS strobe.  The best way of comparing light output is to compare light output.  Look at the lumen rating, not the power input.



When it comes to lights, "Heat Load" is pretty much synonymous with Actual Wattage.

You are correct in that more efficient technologies can produce the same light with less power, then older technologies.  7,000 Lumens of LED light will likely require less power than 7,000 Lumens of incandescent light.

Copy that!

Starkey

The Space Cowboy wrote:

Equivalent in what sense?

Wattage.

FBY1K

Josh C Photography wrote:
Thanks for the replies and advice guys.
It was very helpful.

After some research, and reading threads and posts.

I think I've decided I'm going to buy some strobes, or at least one decent strobe to start off (300 watt)
At first I thought it would be easier to work with continuous lighting, because I'm not super experienced. But I'll learn to work with strobes.

Because it seems that a LOT of CFL's are required for good lighting.. which would require much more money than just a few decent strobes.

New gear may not take your "game" to the next level. Have you exhausted all options from your current setup?

Starkey

FBY1K wrote:

Wattage.

FBY1K

100 Actual Watts will produce the same amount of heat whether it is an incandescent light, an LED, a TV or a coffee warmer.

'Watts' are a measure of power, and all the power ends up as heat.

'Equivalent Wattage' is a made up term that leads to this sort of confusion.

Michael Fryd wrote:

100 Actual Watts will produce the same amount of heat whether it is an incandescent light, an LED, a TV or a coffee warmer.

'Watts' are a measure of power, and all the power ends up as heat.

'Equivalent Wattage' is a made up term that leads to this sort of confusion.

Not true.

Heat is infrared light and the proportion of infrared light emitted falls as the temperature of the emitting body rises.

The notion that all power ends up as heat is true only in the long run. As far as light is concerned, it is true only once all the visible light has been absorbed by bodies cool enough to re-radiate the energy solely as infrared (every body above absolute zero (i.e. zero degrees Kelvin, or -271 degrees centigrade) radiates infrared).

This is elementary physics.

Josh C Photography wrote:
So I'm trying to build a decent home studio.. right now I have a 1000 watt halogen lamp stand and one 500w halogen lamp.

But I'm looking to change my lights to fluorescent since halogens are not the best option.

There is a 2 set light stand with umbrellas that I'm considering to get, but my question is how much wattage would be suitable to have decent lighting from them?

they come with 85 watt bulbs, would that be enough lighting or would i need to upgrade/consider something more expensive?

Halogens are not all that efficient and represent a distinct fire danger, so I think you wise in changing sources.

The comments above about strobes are all good advice, although I prefer compact coiled fluorescent lighting because they make it much easier to see what you are getting as far as lighting is concerned.

How much power do you need?  I work with 2200 watts, mainly 105W and 150W bulbs (so I have five stands, each taking at least 4 lamps).  That is also about the maximum power that a domestic electric circuit can supply.

The bulbs can be bought for $12-$15 each, so the set-up is not wildly expensive.

I shoot at ISO 200 and 1/125 or 1/250 shutter speed.