Hi I wanted to get some lighting. I was looking into it a little bit and don't think I'm ready to buy stands and umbrellas and all that malarky. I was looking at natural light boxes that are used for SAD syndrome. Have tried searching on here and couldn't find a previous topic on this. Would they work for increasing light in doors and give a good quality of light. Better than say just a household lamp to justify the price? Anybody have any experience with them or it is a stupid idea!?
George. Give it whirl. No light source is stupid; just different. It depends very strongly on what you want to achieve though. I have a colleague who photographs art glass and he was after a very specific temperature of light and coherence. He paid a fortune for his lights. I use everything from a cheap LED torch, my computer monitor with different coloured screens, studio lights, the fridge light(!), flash, daylight... whatever worls for me.
They will be 'worse' (less faithful) than a standard tungsten-filament incandescent light bulb.
SAD light sources, often called (rather optimistically) full-spectrum lights, frequently claim that they reproduce the spectrum of light produced by the sun. This is not the case. They produce a light that is interpreted by our eyes as being close to sunlight, but they do this by having quite a spiky and uneven spectrum (for the simple reason that we do not have materials that can stand the heat required to emit true black-body radiation of the same colour temperature as the sun for a prolonged period).
Because of this uneven spectrum, they also affect colour rendition -- some colours will not appear quite correct when lit by full-spectrum lights. (Although they are still a lot better than CFLs). The measurement for this is called CRI, colour rendition index. A CFL typically has a CRI of 60-80, a 'full-spectrum' light around 90-92, and a tungsten-filament bulb is greater than 99 (out of a maximum of 100). It varies by person, but typically a light with a CRI of >95 is required for colours to appear correctly.
For certain uses, they are the best option available, because they do have a relatively high CRI, combined with a colour temperature close to that of the sun. For example, if you are painting, they allow you to see your work pretty much as it will appear in daylight, allowing you to paint at night and not have the colours appear too 'cool'. This is because, while the human eye is very good at adjusting to different colour temperatures, it is not perfect.
A camera, however, is perfect (in this respect) -- you can set the colour temperature to exactly what you want, and it will adjust the image accordingly. This means that the best light source for lighting a photographic subject with is a black body radiator. This emits a smooth spectrum of light at a given correlated colour temperature, which means you get perfect colour rendition (when your camera has the correct white balance set).
The good news is that standard, dirt-cheap, tungsten-filament incandescent bulbs are *excellent* black body radiators. They have a very low colour temperature compared to the sun, which is why the light appears very 'warm' to us, but that doesn't matter to the camera -- simply set your white balance to tungsten and you'll get perfect colours every time (excluding the potential effects of lampshades and light reflected off coloured surfaces, of course!)
Flash guns also have almost exactly the same characteristics, except at a higher colour temperature (closer to sunlight), although they can only produce that light for a split-second without burning out.
So no, if you want accurate colour rendition (which is what I assume you mean by 'quality of light'), I wouldn't spend money on expensive SAD devices, as a cheap lightbulb will be better. Of course, that's not to say that these light sources might not have other advantages, such as their shape, light projection, size, compactness, etc. And the difference will be fairly minimal -- a full-spectrum light will be pretty good, and in many cases indistinguishable from a tungsten-filament bulb -- but not better, in terms of quality of light.
If you are going to spend money on lighting, I would have to recommend the 'malarky' of a couple of off-camera flashes and some lighting accessories (stands, umbrellas, etc). You will have a setup that will allow you to produce incredibly creative effects, is entirely portable and battery-powered, and will allow you to follow any of the hundreds of off-camera lighting tutorials and videos on the 'net to learn how to use them. It really is the best way to learn.
@abirkill Halogen have around the same CRI as incandescent bulbs as well, with the advantage you can still buy them (sale of incandescent bulbs is already banned in some countries). The disadvantage is you need special light fittings, of course. This wasn't something I considered the other day when I went out to buy some new lights for the living room. Honest. ;-)
The last time I bought some bulbs the packaging was marked with the colour temperature (you want 5000K or higher to be close to daylight), so you want to look at that as well.
I made a light box for shots of small things. It cost me .75 cents... I had to buy a roll of tape to hold the white tissue paper to the box. If you search google for home made light box you should find some instructions. The other thing I use is white bristol board (foam filled). I have four sheets and use it to bounce the light from a regular clamp light. You can actually set up a great lighting system for minimal cost. If you search for examples of studio light set ups then you can work out how to do it with just regular lamps and a reflector. I do have the stands and umberellas etc but find more often when I am doing food or still life that I use the bristol board. How about a spare tripod and a flash cable so that you can use your flash off camera. I picked up this one from ebay: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/261034732032?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
Thanks for all your advice. Shannon i tried to make that light box but the only box i had was too flimsy so didn't really work. I just used the material in front of the lamp though and the light was better. Here the shot with it
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
SAD light sources, often called (rather optimistically) full-spectrum lights, frequently claim that they reproduce the spectrum of light produced by the sun. This is not the case. They produce a light that is interpreted by our eyes as being close to sunlight, but they do this by having quite a spiky and uneven spectrum (for the simple reason that we do not have materials that can stand the heat required to emit true black-body radiation of the same colour temperature as the sun for a prolonged period).
You can see the actual spectrums of some typical 'full-spectrum' lightbulbs here:
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightingAnswers/fullSpectrum/lightSources.asp
Because of this uneven spectrum, they also affect colour rendition -- some colours will not appear quite correct when lit by full-spectrum lights. (Although they are still a lot better than CFLs). The measurement for this is called CRI, colour rendition index. A CFL typically has a CRI of 60-80, a 'full-spectrum' light around 90-92, and a tungsten-filament bulb is greater than 99 (out of a maximum of 100). It varies by person, but typically a light with a CRI of >95 is required for colours to appear correctly.
For certain uses, they are the best option available, because they do have a relatively high CRI, combined with a colour temperature close to that of the sun. For example, if you are painting, they allow you to see your work pretty much as it will appear in daylight, allowing you to paint at night and not have the colours appear too 'cool'. This is because, while the human eye is very good at adjusting to different colour temperatures, it is not perfect.
A camera, however, is perfect (in this respect) -- you can set the colour temperature to exactly what you want, and it will adjust the image accordingly. This means that the best light source for lighting a photographic subject with is a black body radiator. This emits a smooth spectrum of light at a given correlated colour temperature, which means you get perfect colour rendition (when your camera has the correct white balance set).
The good news is that standard, dirt-cheap, tungsten-filament incandescent bulbs are *excellent* black body radiators. They have a very low colour temperature compared to the sun, which is why the light appears very 'warm' to us, but that doesn't matter to the camera -- simply set your white balance to tungsten and you'll get perfect colours every time (excluding the potential effects of lampshades and light reflected off coloured surfaces, of course!)
Flash guns also have almost exactly the same characteristics, except at a higher colour temperature (closer to sunlight), although they can only produce that light for a split-second without burning out.
So no, if you want accurate colour rendition (which is what I assume you mean by 'quality of light'), I wouldn't spend money on expensive SAD devices, as a cheap lightbulb will be better. Of course, that's not to say that these light sources might not have other advantages, such as their shape, light projection, size, compactness, etc. And the difference will be fairly minimal -- a full-spectrum light will be pretty good, and in many cases indistinguishable from a tungsten-filament bulb -- but not better, in terms of quality of light.
If you are going to spend money on lighting, I would have to recommend the 'malarky' of a couple of off-camera flashes and some lighting accessories (stands, umbrellas, etc). You will have a setup that will allow you to produce incredibly creative effects, is entirely portable and battery-powered, and will allow you to follow any of the hundreds of off-camera lighting tutorials and videos on the 'net to learn how to use them. It really is the best way to learn.
The last time I bought some bulbs the packaging was marked with the colour temperature (you want 5000K or higher to be close to daylight), so you want to look at that as well.
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/261034732032?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
http://ohsheglows.com/2011/01/26/how-to-make-a-light-box/
That's the tutorial that I used to make my very expensive (.75 cent) light box :)
Thanks for all your advice. Shannon i tried to make that light box but the only box i had was too flimsy so didn't really work. I just used the material in front of the lamp though and the light was better. Here the shot with it