Flood Lamps

This topic doesn't fit into the established catagories, so I thought I'd try it here if OK by you folk.

Hi!

I'm having a lot of fun with Macro, tube, and bellows photography, and am not very good at exposure factors when using flash. I'm using Spotmatics (all three models) and find the TTL meters just fine with sufficient light, and I like previewing my lighting rather than being surprised with flash results.

I use regular outdoor film (mostly 100 ASA) and so far, I'm shooting through a 80A blue filter in an appempt to compensate for my incandescent lighting. Colours are not ideal to say the least.

Now, I wander into the rather overwhelming world of Photofloods - eek!

What I'd like to start with are simply colour-corrected, screw-in 150-300watt bulbs. I keep seeing 3500k or 4500k in the specs. Are these indicators of colour temperature or wavelength?

From what I've described, can anyone suggest where I should start?

Thanks in adavance and

Cheers

The 3500K etc., refers to degrees kelvin, the absolute temperature scale. This is colour temperature, and the lower the figure the more red the light will be. It does also relate to wavelength of the light, but this is not directly relevant to the practicalities.

To get correct colour rendition with tungsten or photoflood lights you will need any of the following options:

1. A Digital SLR will enable you to alter the white balance to get the result you require.

2. There is such a thing as Tungsten film that would appear very blue in daylight, but which will render artificial light more accurately.

3. Use daylight colour film with a correction filter (blue). The 80A is a good place to start, but stronger versions are available if needed (80B, etc.)

I like using tungsten lights as I find I can see the result of the lighting much more clearly than with flash, even studio flash. Many of my portraits are shot with tungsten. It also helps to keep the model warm....

For close ups, though, I actually prefer using daylight via a large window, but sometimes adding a bit of tungsten in to provide a selective glow to the shot.

If you are shooting print film, alot of color correction can be done at the printing stage, ask your photofinisher to add more blue, they should know what you mean..if they don't find another lab. (the printing stage is your biggest variable here, slide film will help you learn faster but is really the school of hard knocks- take lots of notes if you go that rought)

also the photo floods will change color as they get older..warmer to be percise.

the warm balance of floods as compared to flash is nice for portraits but can melt/burn/wilt still life subjects.

stick with slow speed films, as they handle reciprocity failure better than thier high speed films.

take lots of notes. you'll find a set up that works.

Thank's for the input, my friends.

I'll start with whatever flood bulbs I can find locally - not so easy any more! What makes this all even more complicated is we've now got flourescents in the room mix, and I hear they can add a greenish pall? Hopefully the floods overpower everything else.

I'll try to get the highest "K" number if I have an option.

John, I'd love to use natural light, but my wife draws the line on my using the dining room table - which has our best Southern Exposure.

Don, I've been going through note pads as fast as film - but it does pay to record my attempts, as my memory doesn't last until the prints come back. I haven't wilted anything yet with my incandescent lights but it does mean a lot of switching on and off - shortening their lifespan?

I've generally been using 1 Hr photo type C-41 processing for my test rolls. If I (ever) get a shot worth enlarging, I figure I can take the negative to a decent developer for tweaking? Or am I deluding myself that run-of-the-mill negative development is OK?

Thank's again guys!

Maybe not deluding yourself, but not helping yourself in one way. A poor quality processor may use old chemicals, may scratch your negatives, will certainly have a very variable standard of printing. This last point means that you may not know when you have a great neg to enlarge because the processors have messed it up.

If you really want to make progress I would suggest slide film. What you take will be what you get, which will teach you a lot more and a lot more quickly. It is relatively unforgiving in terms of exposure but you will be able to judge how you have done. Also, any colour balance problems will be obvious without being compounded by a processor trying to make corrections for you.

There's no easy way!

John said "There's no easy way"

Yeah! Ain't it great?

I think that's one of the things I love the most about this whole photography thing - the permutations and variables are endless as we try to capture illusive images to satisfy subjective tastes with chemical meduim through physical devices.

It's a wonder to me each and every time anything actually turns out!

I think the old film format appeals to me so much - and especially slides now, because, bam! there it is and there ain't nothing you can do about it.
If it's good - super. If not, learn from it and move on.

Kind of like the days before plastic surgury. Can't improve on what God gave ya.

('course, I'll make sure God isn't using dirty chemicals - don't need that much of a handicap!)

Thank's for the input - Oh, I've just bought three mint Pentax filters - one Skylight, and two Ghostless UV's - all in 49mm. I've paid a lot, but I figure they're Pentax glass and worth it - good as B&W?

Cheers

Actually I've seen more variety in colour temperatures available in fluorescents than incandescent. You can get flourescents at 5000-5400kº and use outdoor film. If you can build a movable box that houses these lights they'll give a much broader and softer light.
Check out these setups!
http://new.academicimaging.com/tech/diginput/lights/kaiserfluor.html
http://www.photo.net.au/tokina/mdsk2/
http://www.webphotosupply.com/425.jpg
http://www.smarthome.com/images/903220mainbig.jpg

Joshua,

Thank's - and WOW!

Those set-ups are very professional and "Cool" - literally.

I'll have to look into them for sure.

Cheers