My friend said he only knew one studio 'crazy enough' to use continuous lighting? Any serious studio would use strobes. But then that's just his take on it which is why I asked.
Thanks for your take on it. 2010/10/2 P. J. Alling <[email protected]>: > The production studio I worked with last year used 3200K balanced > florescent tubes for everything. Didn't see a real tungsten light anywhere. > The lights ran much cooler. I'm pretty sure that even small studio > photographic lighting will be going that route eventually. I don't think > it's the best idea, but it is what will happen. > > On 10/2/2010 10:55 AM, John Sessoms wrote: >> >> From: Thibouille >>> >>> A friend of mine is selling two studio lighting outfits. One is >>> Interfit tungsten continuous lighting, the other are non continuous >>> Falconeyes Flash system >>> >>> Is there any good in this? I have nothing right now but would like to >>> get myself a little studio at home, it would help me progressing >>> faster than the only day I have a studio available (and in which I >>> need to do the job I'm asked to). >>> The Tungsten seemed (I could try both outfilts) to be difficult to >>> withstand because 3x 500W Tungsten are like hot summer after a couple >>> minutes. But that's just from using them a couple minutes. They are >>> rated 3200K but basicaly have no accessories. >>> He's asking 300 euros for the Tungsten kit (I may negotiate though). >>> >>> The Falconeye set is 2x300W with wireless X-sync, honeycomb, snoot, >>> 2xdiffusers and a couple other things. Seemed to work well enough >>> when I tried them. He aasking price is 400 euros (again, could be >>> negotiated). >>> >>> Outside from those precise kits, I do not have yet an idea about pros >>> and cons of continuous vs. non-continuous lighting. I think most pro >>> studios would not work with continuous lighting but this is just >>> guess, I have no idea why. >>> I guess continuous eats way more electrons as well meaning my >>> electricity bill will would be higher than with non continuous ? >>> Maybe reusing old flashes would be better? But if accessories needed >>> (tripods, diffusers etc.) cost me about the same as one of those kits, >>> what's the point? >>> >>> I'm clueless about lighting, really. >>> Thanks for all your suggestions.... >> >> I don't think there's a great deal of difference in the cost of the >> electricity to power them. >> >> Generally, I think PEOPLE will be more comfortable under the strobes. >> Continuous tungsten light does have the heat factor. >> >> What I'm seeing in school, where we are studying lighting, is that >> continuous lighting is used more for product lighting, although strobes work >> for that as well. The inverse does not appear to be true, continuous >> lighting does not work as well for people as strobes do. >> >> Does the two light strobe kit include the light stands? If so, 400 euros >> doesn't sound outrageous. If it does not, the price is too high. >> >> But that's just my opinion >> > > > -- > "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed > moral bankruptcy." > -Woody Allen > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille/Thibs ---------------------- Photo: K-7, Sigma 28/1.8 macro, FA50/1.4, DA40Ltd, K30/2.8, DA16-45, DA50-135, DA50-200, 360FGZ ... Laptop: Macbook 13" Unibody SnowLeo/Win7 Programing: Delphi 2009 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
