Continuous lighting, related film, and equipment?

Hi,

I am considering purchasing a photoflood kit (something along the lines
of
this Smith Victor kit:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search)

and am hoping you all might be able to help me clarify my thinking
about this choice.

My equipment consists of a Nikon F4, three lenses, and a Nikon SB-28
flash,
strobo-frame pro-t bracket, and a difuser. I have been very happy with
the
results, and am at the point where I want to use multiple light sources
for
doing portraiture and still-life. For my personal work, I use primarily
black
and white film. However, I would like to begin getting some small
portrait
jobs to help fund this ever more expensive "hobby," and so I need to be
able
to do color portraiture competently.

If I had more money to spend on this endeavor, I would by an additional
strobe.
However, my research inidicates that in order to do multiple strobe
lighting
effectively, there are a number of other pieces of equipment I would
need
besides the strobe itself and the stands and umbrellas: a flashmeter, a

poloroid back, and, since the poloroid back is hard to get onto the
body,
a second body. I might save some money on the slave unit by getting an
SB-26,
but since I might get a digital body at some point, I want to get an
SB-600
or SB-800. In short, going the multiple-strobe route seems like it
would
easily go into the $600-$900 range.

All this makes the above-referenced floodlight kit seem like a great
value.
Continuuous lighting is more WYSIWIG, making the flashmeter and
poloroid
back unnecessary. From what I've read, continuuous lighting is a great
way
to learn about how to use multiple light sources well. For my black and
white
work, the color temprature of tungsten will not pose a problem. For
color work,
my options would be: 1) Tungsten-blanced film (but see questions
below); 2) Daylight
film with the appropriate filter on the camera; 3) For mixing strobe
and
continuous lighting, tungsten balanced film with the appropriate filter
taped
over the flash. It seems like the only thing I would be unable to do
with
floodlights that I could do with strobes is mix natural light with my
lighting.

Is my information on the right track, up to this point?

My questions, then, are as follows:

A) It seems like there aren't many tungsten films available in 35mm.
The only negative film I could find is Portra 100 (albeit a good film
from
what I hear). Otherwise, it's all (Ekta|fuji)Chrome. Do these tungsten
films
have a future that's any worse than any other type of film these days.

B) How does the quality of Tungsten film compare with the daylight
equivalents?

C) What would I loose (both in terms of light intensity and quality) by

using a daylight film with the appropriate filter on camera?

D) What would I loose (both in terms of light intensity and quality)
by using a tungsten filter over the flash?

E) Can those Smith Victor stands be fitted with hardware to attach
either my
Nikon flashes or some other kind of flashhead (for the future, when I
can afford
the additional flash equipment)?


Many thanks for your help!

--Phil

wrote in message
oups.com...
[SNIP]
It seems like the only thing I would be unable to do with floodlights
that I could do with strobes is mix natural light with my lighting.

Is my information on the right track, up to this point?

You can do that too: CTB gels (heat resisting ones) over your hot-lights, or
use Tungsten film and put CTO gels (big ones) over the windows.


My questions, then, are as follows:

A) It seems like there aren't many tungsten films available in 35mm.
The only negative film I could find is Portra 100 (albeit a good film
from what I hear). Otherwise, it's all (Ekta|fuji)Chrome. Do these
tungsten films have a future that's any worse than any other type of
film these days.

Quite possibly: portraiture is a natural job for digital (unless you care
_desperately_ about accurate colour rendition or BIG and _very_ detailed
prints) so the tungsten balanced negative films must have a limited future.
Tungsten slide film looks like it may have a better future, but maybe not so
much in 35mm, becuase of its use in architecture and product work - but even
these are shrinking markets. Neither were big sellers in the amateur
market.


B) How does the quality of Tungsten film compare with the daylight
equivalents?

Tends to be a bit grainier for a given speed - that may not matter much for
100T used for portraits though.


C) What would I loose (both in terms of light intensity and quality) by
using a daylight film with the appropriate filter on camera?

You'll need an 80B (or B+W KB 12) if you'rte using 3,400K photofloods.
That'll cost you 1 to 1 2/3 stops. 3,200K lamps need an 80A, which costs
you 2 stops or more. (Domestic tungsten bulbs are nearer 2,800 to 2,600K.)

Apart from the speed loss, quality loss is only that which you get with
usung any filter: get a good one that is optically flat and protect it from
flare with a good lens hood and you won't notice the difference, especially
in portraiture.


D) What would I loose (both in terms of light intensity and quality)
by using a tungsten filter over the flash?

A full CTO filter over your flash will lose you 2/3 to 1 stop in light
intensity. It won't really make any difference to the quality of the light.
Get a Lee or Rosco gel for this, and check in their catalogues for which
version you neet for the colour temperature of the lights and film you will
be using.


E) Can those Smith Victor stands be fitted with hardware to attach
either my Nikon flashes or some other kind of flashhead (for the
future, when I can afford the additional flash equipment)?


I'm not familiar with those particular stands, but there's all sorts of
adapters available to connect different fittings together: look at
Matthews', Larson's, and Bogen / Manfrotto's ranges. Nikon's off camera
flash shoes will have a tripod type screw fitting in the bottom, and there
are lots of adapters available that let you put one of these onto a standard
5/8" lighting spigot. The more useful such adapters will also include a
fitting for the shaft of a brolly - these are sometimes known as a
'light-tite'.



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
[SNIP]
It seems like the only thing I would be unable to do with floodlights
that I could do with strobes is mix natural light with my lighting.

Is my information on the right track, up to this point?

You can do that too: CTB gels (heat resisting ones) over your hot-lights, or
use Tungsten film and put CTO gels (big ones) over the windows.

Ah, CTB gels. That's my missing link. I had looked into blue
incandescent bulbs, but found out that their color becomes unstable
even after a few hours of use.It hadn't occured to me I could solve
this problem with gels. So, if I use CTB gels, I can just use daylight
film, and forget about the tungsten film issue?

How much light would I loose with CTBs on the floods?

Also, will the floods with CTB gels work acceptably for digital
capture?

Thank you, this information is immensely helpful to me!

--Phil

wrote:

Hi,

I am considering purchasing a photoflood kit (something along the lines
of
this Smith Victor kit:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search)

Very bad choice for color portraits as you'll be limited to Tungsten
films (or digital). The "blue" lights sort of work, but not well enough
for pro looking results.

If you're serious about lighting, get strobes. Monolights like
AlienBees are a great start, lots of control. Yep, more expensive.

You can also, if you time it right, use natural light from outdoors for
great color portraits. Pretty constraining, however.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bandicoot wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
[SNIP]
It seems like the only thing I would be unable to do with
floodlights that I could do with strobes is mix natural light with my
lighting.

Is my information on the right track, up to this point?

You can do that too: CTB gels (heat resisting ones) over your hot-
lights, or use Tungsten film and put CTO gels (big ones) over the
windows.

Ah, CTB gels. That's my missing link. I had looked into blue
incandescent bulbs, but found out that their color becomes unstable
even after a few hours of use.It hadn't occured to me I could solve
this problem with gels. So, if I use CTB gels, I can just use daylight
film, and forget about the tungsten film issue?

How much light would I loose with CTBs on the floods?

About 1 2/3 Stops.


Also, will the floods with CTB gels work acceptably for digital
capture?

Can't see why not, though not my area of expertise.


Thank you, this information is immensely helpful to me!


No problem, I hope you get a setup that works well for you.



Peter

PS - http://www.leefilters.com/LPFD.asp?PageID=209 is the one you want for
full correction. Rosco makes something similar too.

Fractional CTB (and CTO) filters also exist, allowing you, say, to retain a
partial feeling of 'yellow warmth' in the artificial light that you mix with
window daylight, or other interesting effects.


Peter

Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:

Hi,

I am considering purchasing a photoflood kit (something along the lines
of
this Smith Victor kit:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search)

Very bad choice for color portraits as you'll be limited to Tungsten
films (or digital). The "blue" lights sort of work, but not well enough
for pro looking results.

What about using CTB filters, as suggested above?

If you're serious about lighting, get strobes. Monolights like
AlienBees are a great start, lots of control. Yep, more expensive.

Do you think it's possible to use strobes effectively without some kind
of immediate feedback, such as: shooting digitally, a flashmeter, or a
poloroid back? I might be able to afford the lights, but these
additional pieces of equipment are the problem.

You can also, if you time it right, use natural light from outdoors for
great color portraits. Pretty constraining, however.

My sense is that the floodlights as a sole source of light will be best
for black and white situations, whereas for color I would try to
combine natural light with reflectors and the floods with CTB gels.

Thanks.

--PHil

Unless you plan on using tungsten film and working only at night, this
is a very bad idea. It is also very uncomfortable to work under hot
lights.

Forget it. Use strobes. That's why they make them.

wrote:
Hi,

I am considering purchasing a photoflood kit (something along the lines
of
this Smith Victor kit:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search)

and am hoping you all might be able to help me clarify my thinking
about this choice.

My equipment consists of a Nikon F4, three lenses, and a Nikon SB-28
flash,
strobo-frame pro-t bracket, and a difuser. I have been very happy with
the
results, and am at the point where I want to use multiple light sources
for
doing portraiture and still-life. For my personal work, I use primarily
black
and white film. However, I would like to begin getting some small
portrait
jobs to help fund this ever more expensive "hobby," and so I need to be
able
to do color portraiture competently.

If I had more money to spend on this endeavor, I would by an additional
strobe.
However, my research inidicates that in order to do multiple strobe
lighting
effectively, there are a number of other pieces of equipment I would
need
besides the strobe itself and the stands and umbrellas: a flashmeter, a

poloroid back, and, since the poloroid back is hard to get onto the
body,
a second body. I might save some money on the slave unit by getting an
SB-26,
but since I might get a digital body at some point, I want to get an
SB-600
or SB-800. In short, going the multiple-strobe route seems like it
would
easily go into the $600-$900 range.

All this makes the above-referenced floodlight kit seem like a great
value.
Continuuous lighting is more WYSIWIG, making the flashmeter and
poloroid
back unnecessary. From what I've read, continuuous lighting is a great
way
to learn about how to use multiple light sources well. For my black and
white
work, the color temprature of tungsten will not pose a problem. For
color work,
my options would be: 1) Tungsten-blanced film (but see questions
below); 2) Daylight
film with the appropriate filter on the camera; 3) For mixing strobe
and
continuous lighting, tungsten balanced film with the appropriate filter
taped
over the flash. It seems like the only thing I would be unable to do
with
floodlights that I could do with strobes is mix natural light with my
lighting.

Is my information on the right track, up to this point?

My questions, then, are as follows:

A) It seems like there aren't many tungsten films available in 35mm.
The only negative film I could find is Portra 100 (albeit a good film
from
what I hear). Otherwise, it's all (Ekta|fuji)Chrome. Do these tungsten
films
have a future that's any worse than any other type of film these days.

B) How does the quality of Tungsten film compare with the daylight
equivalents?

C) What would I loose (both in terms of light intensity and quality) by

using a daylight film with the appropriate filter on camera?

D) What would I loose (both in terms of light intensity and quality)
by using a tungsten filter over the flash?

E) Can those Smith Victor stands be fitted with hardware to attach
either my
Nikon flashes or some other kind of flashhead (for the future, when I
can afford
the additional flash equipment)?


Many thanks for your help!

--Phil

In article .com,
wrote:
a flashmeter, a
poloroid back, and, since the poloroid back is hard to get onto the
body,
a second body.

Instead of a flashmeter and polaroid back, you may want to look into an
old digital camera. Just any old digital P&S that sort of covers the
field of view you want to use and that has a manual color balance and
ISO setting is likely to work. If the camera doesn't have an X-contact you
can probably tape a slave trigger to the built-in flash.

Real studio flashes have modeling lights. These are preferable if you
want to set up the flash with the 'model' present. Otherwise, just
about any old 'automatic' flash can be tricked into providing the amount of
power you need.



--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Philip Homburg wrote:
Instead of a flashmeter and polaroid back, you may want to look into an
old digital camera. Just any old digital P&S that sort of covers the
field of view you want to use and that has a manual color balance and
ISO setting is likely to work. If the camera doesn't have an X-contact you
can probably tape a slave trigger to the built-in flash.

I have a Cannon A60 that would do the trick. It's true I could trigger
the off-camera flashes with the A60's flash, but then the A60's flash
would be creating a lighting artifact of it's own. But it's certainly
better than nothing.

Real studio flashes have modeling lights. These are preferable if you
want to set up the flash with the 'model' present.

Also true. I think that in order to be useful the modelling lights have
to be over 100 W. The inexpensive monoheads that I could afford have
modelling lights that are typically in the lower wattage range and
hence less useful.

Otherwise, just
about any old 'automatic' flash can be tricked into providing the amount of
power you need.

Yes, my other option is to mount my SB-28 on a stand with an umbrella
along with an SB-600 on a slave trigger. Perhaps previewing digitally
would make this type of arrangement work.

Thanks for the suggestion.

--Phil