New To Studio Lighting - Looking for a Quality Constant light

[AndersonPhotography]

Good morning, everyone!

I new to the site, and loving all the forums on here!

I have been a natural light photographer for almost a year now, and am thinking about setting up a very small newborn indoor studio in my home. The room that I have to use it is lacking a lot of natural light, which is what I would have preferred to use. However, since there's not much I can do about the natural light situation, I was curious if anyone has any recommendations for a constant light that I could use that would be a nice, soft replacement for natural light? The room is cozy (12'x10'), and lower ceilings (8' is my best guess)

Everything I'm reading is telling me to stay away from strobes with newborns, but any advice would be greatly appreciate!

Thanks so much!

Patricia Anderson

Patricia Anderson Photography
Chicago Photographer - Wedding, Newborn, Child and Pet Photography | Patricia Anderson Photography

[TPF Sponsor]

[KmH]

I was curious if anyone has any recommendations for a constant light that I could use that would be a nice, soft replacement for natural light? The room is cozy (12'x10'), and lower ceilings (8' is my best guess)

"nice, soft replacement for natural light" means apparently big. (IMO, the purple text is very unprofessional.)

So the light will need to be modified to make it apparently big.

Constant lights put out a lot of heat, and constant lights have no photographic power. So, you have to get them real close (Constant lights put out a lot of heat).

With a couple of 500 watt equivalent lights, you may do portraits at ISO 400, f/2.8, 1/60 second, maximum, hopefully. (you have to get them real close (Constant lights put out a lot of heat).)

Continuous lights are measured in watts, and strobed light is measured in watt seconds.

So lets consider what 500 watts means:

If you have a shutter speed of 1 second shutter, then 500 watts is 500 watts x 1 second = 500 watt seconds. That may be enough light, if you can use a 1 second shutter.

Using 1/10 of a second for the shutter speed, then 500 watts is 500 wattsx 1/10 second = 50 watt seconds, maybe still usable, but humans do move.

Using 1/100 second for the shutter speed, then 500 watt is 500 watts x 1/100 second= 5 watt seconds. So maybe ISO 1600 f/2.8 might work, hopefully, if you can get those hot lights close enough. It will be better if you have a full frame camera with good high ISO performance. Otherwise, it will not be fun. And the lights will make the room just as hot, no matter what shutter speed or ISO, because most of the light is wasted. After all, you only use the light for somewhere between 1 second and 1/100 second to make the photo. The rest of the time the constant light is on, it's just heating up your little room, and the infant.

More good news (not). If the 500 watt rating is tungsten equivalent, back up, because tungsten is poorly efficient. Tungsten puts out more heat than light (and the heat is a definite very big problem in the studio- you don't want pictures of a cooked infant). Compared to CFL or flash, which are maybe 4x more efficient, then this 500 watts is really only about 25% or 125 watts equivalent. Reduce all the above numbers by 1/4.

Constant lights also only provide ambient light, so you lose the exposure advantage strobed light gives, in so far that with strobed light you can control the strobed light exposure with the lens aperture, while separately and at the same time, controlling the ambient light exposure with the shutter speed.

Everything I'm reading is telling me to stay away from strobes with newborns, but any advice would be greatly appreciate!

Don't believe everything you read.
How many of the infants you photograph have their eye's open when you trip the shutter? Plus, the strobed light does not need to be set to full power, or be pointed directly into the infants eyes, like when using a hot shoe mounted flash.

At any rate strobed light will also need to be made apparently large with modifiers, so the light will be even more diffuse.

Medicine is not an exact science, and has been known to perpetuate urban legends.
For a very long time they thought stomach ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and excess stomach acid. Doctors had stomach ulcer patients sipping Maalox and other things all day long to neutralize stomach acid, when what the patients needed was antibiotics.

In 1982 Barry Marshall and Robin Warren identified the fairly common stomach bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, as the main causal agent of gastritis, and gastric ulcers. Helicobacter pylori has by now also been implicated in causing duodenal ulcers and stomach cancers. It took 10 years for the medical community to accept that Helicobacter pylori was the culprit. in those 10 years many people died from stomach ulcer problems.

[Derrel]

I'd look into three of these, plus $1,000 worth of scrims, reflectors, gobos, stands, and acillary ccessories.

ARRI Pocket Par 400 AC Kit 504960 - ARRI-504960 - Arri HMI Lighting - Lights On Retail

[AndersonPhotography]

Thanks for the explanation!

You definitely helped shed a little light (no pun intended) on the topic, and I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out. I'll start researching a few strobes and large diffusers, since that seems to be a better option in regards to heat in such a small space.

Also- Sorry if the text color bothers you enough that you needed to comment on it! Wasn't trying to come off professionally or unprofessionally. I just simply had a question, and a little color never hurts anyone...

Thanks again!

[AndersonPhotography]

I'd look into three of these, plus $1,000 worth of scrims, reflectors, gobos, stands, and acillary ccessories.

ARRI Pocket Par 400 AC Kit 504960 - ARRI-504960 - Arri HMI Lighting - Lights On Retail

Thanks, Derrel!

Maybe if I ever make it big I'll invest in that light, but for now, it's a bit out of my price range