Adapting a Basic lighting setup

antihero

antihero

Messages
4,274
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a set of Interfit Ez-flo lights (continuous light that work off 4 bulbs, found here), and because cost is a massive issue for me I was considering modifying them. The main issue with them is that they are not bright enough.

I only use them at home for family and friend work (so nothing serious enough to warrant expensive studio lighting), but would like a bit more out of them so had the following idea.....

Remove the existing softbox from the fitting (it's all-in-one and attached to the stand bracket so it would not be of any further use), as it's not the biggest anyway, leaving me with 4 bare bulbs attached to a tilt-able bracket. Replace the not-bright-enough 4x28w bulbs with something like 40 or 50w bulbs and get a Westcott Apollo/Phottix Easy-up style softbox. This would also mean that if I where to go shooting outdoors I could use the same stand and softbox but whip out the continuous lights and use a speedlight instead.

This would probably cost around £100 (for one light, wouldn't need to do both).

Anyone think of any downside to this, or any reason why it wouldn't work? Or I could just sell the Ez-flo and go with a speedlight and softbox setup at virtually no cost. Just like the idea of having the flexibility of being able to use continuous lights or a flash with the same rig.
 
To get significantly more light, you'd need much bigger bulbs, like 100w-plus, and they may not fit. Going to 40-50w wouldn't even give you one stop more, even 100w would be less than two stops.

If you want more light, get a Lencarta SmartFlash for £100-ish. Many times more light.
 
28W are a bit low, if they'll fit try 85W (just check the CRI is > 90 if colour rendition is important).
 
the 28w bulbs are the INT034 now supplied with all the Interfit constant lights. They are fluorescent so are equivalent to around 100w incandescent bulbs.

although as i've now an Eazy-up softbox on the way and more stands than I need, it might be an idea just to sell the Eazy-flo setup and buy a Smartflash as per Richards advice :)
 
antihero said:
the 28w bulbs are the INT034 now supplied with all the Interfit constant lights. They are fluorescent so are equivalent to around 100w incandescent bulbs.

although as i've now an Eazy-up softbox on the way and more stands than I need, it might be an idea just to sell the Eazy-flo setup and buy a Smartflash as per Richards advice :)
Click to expand...

Good choice! Just on the question of power, the SmartFlash head (and any other flash head of the same output) will produce about as much power during the very brief flash as two of those lights will produce during a one second exposure...

And when you factor in the lack of adjustability and the lack of modifiers for the continuous lights...
 
The SmartFlash at 200Ws is about 360000x more powerful than a 100W incandescent bulb (using t.5 figures).

If you have any question, just give us a call. We are here to help.

EDIT: a brain dead moment for me. It's actually 3600x more powerful. 200*1800/100=3600 (using t.5 figures). LOL.
 
Last edited:
Lencarta said:
The SmartFlash at 200Ws is about 360000x more powerful than a 100W incandescent bulb (using t.5 figures).

If you have any question, just give us a call. We are here to help.

EDIT: a brain dead moment for me. It's actually 3600x more powerful. 200*1800/100=3600 (using t.5 figures). LOL.
Click to expand...

Or, using the more practical figure of 1/200th sec shutter speed equivalent (working on the assumption that 1/200th is about the minimum effective shutter speed equivalent to deal with camera shake in the studio) the SmartFlash is around 400 times more powerful.

Whatever, the fact remains that continuous lighting is extremely limited.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Or, using the more practical figure of 1/200th sec shutter speed equivalent (working on the assumption that 1/200th is about the minimum effective shutter speed equivalent to deal with camera shake in the studio) the SmartFlash is around 400 times more powerful.

Whatever, the fact remains that continuous lighting is extremely limited.
Click to expand...

You can't compare watts and watt-seconds that way. That's electrical power consumption or power stored when so much depends on the efficiency of the conversion to light, ie the bulb, flash tube etc.

When I compared fluorescent lights like the OP's last year for Advanced Photographer magazine, 4x 28w bulbs were putting out about six stops less light than a 200Ws flash head in a similar modifier, ie about 64x. Still a massive difference.
 
HoppyUK said:
You can't compare watts and watt-seconds that way. That's electrical power consumption or power stored when so much depends on the efficiency of the conversion to light, ie the bulb, flash tube etc.

When I compared fluorescent lights like the OP's last year for Advanced Photographer magazine, 4x 28w bulbs were putting out about six stops less light than a 200Ws flash head in a similar modifier, ie about 64x. Still a massive difference.
Click to expand...
Agreed - but you tested four, the OP is talking about just one...
 
HoppyUK said:
OP has 4 x 28w?
Click to expand...

Yes you're right, I was reading the reference to a 28 watt fluorescent being roughly equivalent to a 100 watt tungsten and didn't connect the dots:crying:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top