Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

500W Flourescent photo lamps ????

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:39:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any 500W
equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?

I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.

Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this being
a wise choice or not.

DJ
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dajaxon wrote:
>
> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
> work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any 500W
> equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?
>
> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>
> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this being
> a wise choice or not.

strobes?


>
> DJ
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dajaxon" <dajaxon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6QWPd.55719$uA.16072@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
> work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any 500W
> equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?
>
> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>
> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this being
> a wise choice or not.
>
> DJ

I really don't think you would find floourescent light very pleasing--even with filters or
white-balance adjustments.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dajaxon wrote:
> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
> work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any 500W
> equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?
>
> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>
> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this being
> a wise choice or not.
>
> DJ
>

Visit this site.
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescen...
They have a 65 Watt compact fluorescent Full Spectrum CRI=93
(CRI= Color RenditionIndex Index) that has a lumen output equivalent to
a 300W incandescent.
A pair of those may serve your needs.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:19:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Try

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...

Watch the wrap. B&H has a lot of fluorescent studio set-ups, kits and
otherwise. Be warned: low end is very close to $700 for a two or three
light kit. If the wrap screws up, just go to bhphotovideo.com and check
out studio lighting.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 10:35:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dajaxon wrote:
> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
> work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any 500W
> equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?
>
> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>
> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this being
> a wise choice or not.

I dunno that you'd really want to use flourescent - despite designed
color temperatures, their light output tends to within very narrow bands
- a spectrograph generally looks like a comb with a bunch of teeth
missing, just one long tooth at the primary wavelenth and maybe a few
shorter ones. Same with any light source that uses excited gas vapors
to produce most of their output, like mercury-vapor street lamps, which
is why colors tend to look odd or almost disappear entirely under these
lights.

Even colored incandescants light up a fairly wide range of color around
their primary color.

Ever considered a couple proper studio strobes?
February 14, 2005 10:50:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Never tried but what about the 150-200Watt equivalent Spiral or twister
fluorescents bulbs, use two of them to eq 500w bulb.
The heat output will be allot less also. A 45 watt spiral bulb will almost
generate the light equivalent of a 200 bulb.


Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:42106073.2070208@cox.net...
>
>
> dajaxon wrote:
>> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
>> work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any
>> 500W
>> equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?
>>
>> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
>> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>>
>> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this
>> being
>> a wise choice or not.
>>
>> DJ
>>
>
> Visit this site.
> http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescen...
> They have a 65 Watt compact fluorescent Full Spectrum CRI=93
> (CRI= Color RenditionIndex Index) that has a lumen output equivalent to a
> 300W incandescent.
> A pair of those may serve your needs.
> Bob Williams
>
>
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 11:15:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3xYPd.385973$6l.320129@pd7tw2no>,
Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:
>dajaxon wrote:
>> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
>> work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any 500W
>> equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?
>>
>> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
>> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>>
>> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this being
>> a wise choice or not.
>
>I dunno that you'd really want to use flourescent - despite designed
>color temperatures, their light output tends to within very narrow bands
>- a spectrograph generally looks like a comb with a bunch of teeth
>missing, just one long tooth at the primary wavelenth and maybe a few
>shorter ones. Same with any light source that uses excited gas vapors
>to produce most of their output, like mercury-vapor street lamps, which
>is why colors tend to look odd or almost disappear entirely under these
>lights.
>
>Even colored incandescants light up a fairly wide range of color around
>their primary color.
>
>Ever considered a couple proper studio strobes?
>

500 watts is 500 watts. If it's on all the time it doesn't matter if
it's a toaster or a photo lamp. It's going to generate the same amount
of heat.







--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 11:54:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Calumet photo (search google) sells 2 different lighting setups to do just
what you want.



--
John Passaneau
Penn State University
jxp16@psu.edu


"MarkĀ²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:Q8ZPd.90221$0u.88710@fed1read04...
>
> "dajaxon" <dajaxon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6QWPd.55719$uA.16072@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> >I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
> > work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any
500W
> > equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?
> >
> > I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
> > digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
> >
> > Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this
being
> > a wise choice or not.
> >
> > DJ
>
> I really don't think you would find floourescent light very pleasing--even
with filters or
> white-balance adjustments.
>
>
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 6:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dajaxon wrote:
> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for
> indoor work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are
> there any 500W equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last
> longer and be cooler?
>
> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>

No you don't need 5000K, but you can experience some unexpected, and
unpredictable and often undesirable results with fluorescent lights. The
newer better fluorescent lamps are better than the old ones, but they not
the equal to a full spectrum lamp.

What happens is that with sun light and tungsten type lamps there is a
fairly smooth continuous mix if colors. You may call them analog. In
fluorescent and gas discharge lamps, the light tends to be spotty, with very
strong bust of output at certain specific colors and then gaps between.

If you had only true white or gray or black subjects like a gray card,
your results would be fine. however in real life it is not that simple.
Take a tree leaf. During the summer, it appears green. In the fall it
"turns" red. Well it did not change color it lost some of the chemicals in
the leaf and they reflected on certain colors and then the remainder of the
chemicals show up as the colors that they reflect. Part of the spectrum is
no longer reflected. These lights make it more complex.

Some objects reflect only a very small range of certain colors. If the
light reflected by those chemicals in a leaf that leave the leaf in the
fall, reflected on a small range of light and if your fluorescent lamp did
not have any light in that range, but rather had extra strong light in close
by colors, you might see the green leaf, but the camera would see the red
fall leaf.

> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this
> being a wise choice or not.
>
> DJ



--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 7:45:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:

>500 watts is 500 watts. If it's on all the time it doesn't matter if
>it's a toaster or a photo lamp. It's going to generate the same amount
>of heat.

He said "500 W equivalents". In other words, fluorescent lamps that put
out an equivalent amount of light. Given the usual difference in
efficiency, about 100 W of fluorescents provide as much light as 500 W
of incandescent lamps, but with only 1/5 as much heat.

Dave
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:01:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dajaxon <dajaxon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for
> indoor work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are
> there any 500W equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last
> longer and be cooler?

HMI lightting is the continuous alternative to strobes.

For example, http://www.k5600.com/

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:47:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Visit this site.
> http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescen...
> They have a 65 Watt compact fluorescent Full Spectrum CRI=93
> (CRI= Color RenditionIndex Index) that has a lumen output equivalent
> to a 300W incandescent.
> A pair of those may serve your needs.
> Bob Williams
>
>

Interesting bulb, thanks for the info Bob!

T.W.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:07:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:

>
>
> dajaxon wrote:
>> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for
>> indoor work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are
>> there any 500W equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last
>> longer and be cooler?
>>
>> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
>> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>>
>> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this
>> being a wise choice or not.
>>
>> DJ
>>
>
> Visit this site.
> http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescen...
> They have a 65 Watt compact fluorescent Full Spectrum CRI=93
> (CRI= Color RenditionIndex Index) that has a lumen output equivalent
> to a 300W incandescent.
> A pair of those may serve your needs.
> Bob Williams
>
>
>

A CRI of 93 is still pretty awful. Just look at what anything under CRI=
98 does to a color print compared to a continous spectrum incandescent
light like a Solux.

They make CRI98 fluorescents in Australia but I've never seen any in NA.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:07:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:
> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dajaxon wrote:
>>
>>>I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for
>>>indoor work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are
>>>there any 500W equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last
>>>longer and be cooler?
>>>
>>>I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
>>>digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>>>
>>>Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this
>>>being a wise choice or not.
>>>
>>>DJ
>>>
>>
>>Visit this site.
>>http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescen...
>>They have a 65 Watt compact fluorescent Full Spectrum CRI=93
>>(CRI= Color RenditionIndex Index) that has a lumen output equivalent
>>to a 300W incandescent.
>>A pair of those may serve your needs.
>>Bob Williams
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> A CRI of 93 is still pretty awful. Just look at what anything under CRI=
> 98 does to a color print compared to a continous spectrum incandescent
> light like a Solux.
>
> They make CRI98 fluorescents in Australia but I've never seen any in NA.

A CRI of 93 is pretty awful?
Surely you jest!
I photographed a MacBeth Chart with a CRI 93 Fluorescent light and with
Sunlight. I opened them in Photoshop and read the RGB values from each
square. The readings were extremely close for every square with no
indication of a color bias.
I dare say that the differences were probably similar to comparing two
shots taken in Sunlight at different times of the day or with different
cloud cover. In actual practice, Sunlight does not have a very reliable,
reproducible color temperature.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:40:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95FDD6D71DAC3dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30>,
Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > dajaxon wrote:
> >> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for
> >> indoor work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are
> >> there any 500W equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last
> >> longer and be cooler?
> >>
> >> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
> >> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
> >>
> >> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this
> >> being a wise choice or not.
> >>
> >> DJ
> >>
> >
> > Visit this site.
> > http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescen...
> > They have a 65 Watt compact fluorescent Full Spectrum CRI=93
> > (CRI= Color RenditionIndex Index) that has a lumen output equivalent
> > to a 300W incandescent.
> > A pair of those may serve your needs.
> > Bob Williams
> >
> >
> >
>
> A CRI of 93 is still pretty awful. Just look at what anything under CRI=
> 98 does to a color print compared to a continous spectrum incandescent
> light like a Solux.
>
> They make CRI98 fluorescents in Australia but I've never seen any in NA.

Osram Dulux 55W tubes in the proper fixtures put out a CRI of 98+. They
are also available in 36W and can be bought as 5000K or in 3200K. Use
with electronic ballasts.

These are the bulbs used for high end quality copying on film or digital
as well as for TV and movie set lighting and in the highest quality
light boxes.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 8:18:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Al Dykes <adykes@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <3xYPd.385973$6l.320129@pd7tw2no>,
>Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:
>>dajaxon wrote:
>>> I have had an interest in using "hot" lights in place of flash for indoor
>>> work and realize that 500W lights can be dangerously hot. Are there any 500W
>>> equivalents in flourescents that wil probably last longer and be cooler?
>>>
>>> I don't think I really need to have 5000K lights since I'm shooting
>>> digital - because I believe I can color correct for the K.
>>>
>>> Anyone have any leads of who might make this, and comments about this being
>>> a wise choice or not.
>>
>>I dunno that you'd really want to use flourescent - despite designed
>>color temperatures, their light output tends to within very narrow bands
>>- a spectrograph generally looks like a comb with a bunch of teeth
>>missing, just one long tooth at the primary wavelenth and maybe a few
>>shorter ones. Same with any light source that uses excited gas vapors
>>to produce most of their output, like mercury-vapor street lamps, which
>>is why colors tend to look odd or almost disappear entirely under these
>>lights.
>>
>>Even colored incandescants light up a fairly wide range of color around
>>their primary color.
>>
>>Ever considered a couple proper studio strobes?
>>

>500 watts is 500 watts. If it's on all the time it doesn't matter if
>it's a toaster or a photo lamp. It's going to generate the same amount
>of heat.


Hmm. I'm not sure. A flourescent that puts out as much
light as a 500 watt incandescent would not draw anything
like 500 watts.

----- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 8:18:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cus0mq$pp8$10@reader2.panix.com...

>>500 watts is 500 watts. If it's on all the time it doesn't matter if
>>it's a toaster or a photo lamp. It's going to generate the same amount
>>of heat.
>
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure. A flourescent that puts out as much
> light as a 500 watt incandescent would not draw anything
> like 500 watts.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans

IIRC a 27 watt fluorescent is equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent - about
1600 lumens. So 150 watts of fluorescents should equal about 500 of
incandescent. I wonder if a couple of 20 watt spiral 6500k "Daylight", a
couple of spiral 5100K "Office Daylight", and a couple of regular
soft/warm white spiral fluorescents wouldn't approximate real daylight. I
bought both 6500K and 5100K 20 watt (~75 w) spirals at Home Depot.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 12:47:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> A CRI of 93 is still pretty awful. Just look at what anything under
>> CRI=98 does to a color print compared to a continous spectrum incandescent
>> light like a Solux.
>>
> A CRI of 93 is pretty awful?
> Surely you jest!
> I photographed a MacBeth Chart with a CRI 93 Fluorescent light and with
> Sunlight. I opened them in Photoshop and read the RGB values from each
> square. The readings were extremely close for every square with no
> indication of a color bias.
> I dare say that the differences were probably similar to comparing two
> shots taken in Sunlight at different times of the day or with different
> cloud cover. In actual practice, Sunlight does not have a very reliable,
> reproducible color temperature.

Were the gray patches slightly green?

Nonetheless the Osram Delux bulbs with CRI 98+ would seem to be
the best choice, if you can find them. B&H doesn't list them,
and Froogle comes up empty.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>A CRI of 93 is still pretty awful. Just look at what anything under
>>>CRI=98 does to a color print compared to a continous spectrum incandescent
>>>light like a Solux.
>>>
>>
>>A CRI of 93 is pretty awful?
>>Surely you jest!
>>I photographed a MacBeth Chart with a CRI 93 Fluorescent light and with
>>Sunlight. I opened them in Photoshop and read the RGB values from each
>>square. The readings were extremely close for every square with no
>>indication of a color bias.
>>I dare say that the differences were probably similar to comparing two
>>shots taken in Sunlight at different times of the day or with different
>>cloud cover. In actual practice, Sunlight does not have a very reliable,
>>reproducible color temperature.
>
>
> Were the gray patches slightly green?
>
> Nonetheless the Osram Delux bulbs with CRI 98+ would seem to be
> the best choice, if you can find them. B&H doesn't list them,
> and Froogle comes up empty.
>

No consistent Color bias on gray patches with these bulbs
With ordinary household fluorescents there would be a strong green bias.
But these full-spectrum, high CRI bulbs are different beasts.
I agree, CRI 98 would be even better than CRI 93 but I could not find
them anywhere with the Compact Fluorescent build.
I Googled on Osram Dulux and got a lot of hits but most had a color
temperature of 3,000K and a CRI of 88.
Evidently, just the name Osram Dulux does not specify the CRI 98 version
I finally Googled on "CRI 98" and got some hits there.
Osram Dulux did not come up but Phillips and Sylvania both had 48"
Tubular Fluorescents with CRI 98. They might serve the OP well, but for
my particular set up, I needed Compact Fluorescents.
For small object photography, an OTT light may be a good choice. It is a
nice compact desk type lamp that claims a color temp of 5,000K and a CRI
of 95.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:51:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

500 W equivalents - please re-read
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:58:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <421235cf@news.meer.net>, Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:

> if you can find them. B&H doesn't list them,
> and Froogle comes up empty.

Barbizon has them. They are used in lighting units like the Kaiser
ProSoft. If you ask B&H for Kaiser replacement tubes then they would
have a listing. But it will not be on line. You would have to call them.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:34:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Possum Trot <minstamp@hot.mail.com> wrote:

>"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cus0mq$pp8$10@reader2.panix.com...

>>>500 watts is 500 watts. If it's on all the time it doesn't matter if
>>>it's a toaster or a photo lamp. It's going to generate the same amount
>>>of heat.
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm not sure. A flourescent that puts out as much
>> light as a 500 watt incandescent would not draw anything
>> like 500 watts.
>>
>> ----- Paul J. Gans

>IIRC a 27 watt fluorescent is equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent - about
>1600 lumens. So 150 watts of fluorescents should equal about 500 of
>incandescent. I wonder if a couple of 20 watt spiral 6500k "Daylight", a
>couple of spiral 5100K "Office Daylight", and a couple of regular
>soft/warm white spiral fluorescents wouldn't approximate real daylight. I
>bought both 6500K and 5100K 20 watt (~75 w) spirals at Home Depot.

The spectral emissions of a flourescent worry me. I've not
checked and so what I say can not be taken as verified, but
the basic flourescent is very rich in purple. To some
extent that can be tamed with proper phosphors but I have no
idea about the result.

The brain is very good at compensating for such things. The
camera isn't.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 11:27:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
>
> The spectral emissions of a flourescent worry me. I've not
> checked and so what I say can not be taken as verified, but
> the basic flourescent is very rich in purple. To some
> extent that can be tamed with proper phosphors but I have no
> idea about the result. The brain is very good at compensating
> for such things. The camera isn't.

You should try the new generation of flourescents.
Most older ones showed too-green on camera, although film
recorded them as yellow at one end and blue at the other.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00...

I'm not sure where you get purple. Chromolux bulbs are yellow
(so-called tungsten filament) with purple-tinged coating.

The newer ones can be pink, blue, or near-continuous spectrum
depending on gas mixture and quality.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 8:09:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Possum Trot <minstamp@hot.mail.com> wrote:

> "Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:cus0mq$pp8$10@reader2.panix.com...

>>>500 watts is 500 watts. If it's on all the time it doesn't matter if
>>>it's a toaster or a photo lamp. It's going to generate the same amount
>>>of heat.
>>
>> Hmm. I'm not sure. A flourescent that puts out as much
>> light as a 500 watt incandescent would not draw anything
>> like 500 watts.

> IIRC a 27 watt fluorescent is equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent
> - about 1600 lumens.

The efficiency decreases as the spectral purity increases. The most
efficient fluorescents have a really horrible CRI.

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 8:09:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1116vhskgua4423@news.supernews.com>,
andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> The most
> efficient fluorescents have a really horrible CRI.

Seems you haven't tried modern ones have you? CRI of 98+ in either 5400K
or 3200K. Of course the K and CRI of the lamp are only starting points.
The reflector material and the diffuser also add or subtract to the
spectrum of the system.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:27:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:

> A CRI of 93 is pretty awful?
> Surely you jest!
> I photographed a MacBeth Chart with a CRI 93 Fluorescent light and
> with Sunlight. I opened them in Photoshop and read the RGB values from
> each square. The readings were extremely close for every square with
> no indication of a color bias.
> I dare say that the differences were probably similar to comparing two
> shots taken in Sunlight at different times of the day or with
> different cloud cover. In actual practice, Sunlight does not have a
> very reliable, reproducible color temperature.
> Bob Williams
>
>
>

The MacBeth chart is printed with inks formulated to reduce the effects
of metamerism. Real world objects do not react as kindly to fluorescent
illumination.

Sunlight may vary in its temperature but it's always CRI100. CRI ratings
have nothing to do with color temp.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:32:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:

> No consistent Color bias on gray patches with these bulbs
> With ordinary household fluorescents there would be a strong green
> bias. But these full-spectrum, high CRI bulbs are different beasts.
> I agree, CRI 98 would be even better than CRI 93 but I could not find
> them anywhere with the Compact Fluorescent build.
> I Googled on Osram Dulux and got a lot of hits but most had a color
> temperature of 3,000K and a CRI of 88.
> Evidently, just the name Osram Dulux does not specify the CRI 98
> version I finally Googled on "CRI 98" and got some hits there.
> Osram Dulux did not come up but Phillips and Sylvania both had 48"
> Tubular Fluorescents with CRI 98. They might serve the OP well, but
> for my particular set up, I needed Compact Fluorescents.
> For small object photography, an OTT light may be a good choice. It is
> a nice compact desk type lamp that claims a color temp of 5,000K and a
> CRI of 95.
> Bob Williams
>
>

They (Ott) may claim CRI95 but I've put one through chromatagraphic
testing and the curve that came out was VERY different from the one they
provide. Nice reading light but I wouldn't want to look at color prints
with one. There are many peaks and holes in the spectra.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:32:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:
> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> No consistent Color bias on gray patches with these bulbs
>> With ordinary household fluorescents there would be a strong green
>> bias. But these full-spectrum, high CRI bulbs are different beasts.
>> I agree, CRI 98 would be even better than CRI 93 but I could not find
>> them anywhere with the Compact Fluorescent build.
>> I Googled on Osram Dulux and got a lot of hits but most had a color
>> temperature of 3,000K and a CRI of 88.
>> Evidently, just the name Osram Dulux does not specify the CRI 98
>> version I finally Googled on "CRI 98" and got some hits there.
>> Osram Dulux did not come up but Phillips and Sylvania both had 48"
>> Tubular Fluorescents with CRI 98. They might serve the OP well, but
>> for my particular set up, I needed Compact Fluorescents.
>> For small object photography, an OTT light may be a good choice. It
>> is a nice compact desk type lamp that claims a color temp of 5,000K
>> and a CRI of 95.
>> Bob Williams
>>
>>
>
> They (Ott) may claim CRI95 but I've put one through chromatagraphic
> testing and the curve that came out was VERY different from the one
> they provide. Nice reading light but I wouldn't want to look at color
> prints with one. There are many peaks and holes in the spectra.

Do they know that? What do they say about it?


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 3:59:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Xns95FFA84ACCCEBdilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30>,
Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>They (Ott) may claim CRI95 but I've put one through chromatagraphic
>testing and the curve that came out was VERY different from the one they
>provide. Nice reading light but I wouldn't want to look at color prints
>with one. There are many peaks and holes in the spectra.

You can see the spectrum easily if you make a small hole in a sheet of
black plastic (or aluminum foil) and view a light through the hole with
prism glasses.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 7:46:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <1116vhskgua4423@news.supernews.com>,
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

>> The most efficient fluorescents have a really horrible CRI.

> Seems you haven't tried modern ones have you?

The most efficient fluorsecents run to about 80 lumens per watt,
whereas the broadband types (typically F9) are about 45 lumens per
watt.

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 4:11:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:
> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>A CRI of 93 is pretty awful?
>>Surely you jest!
>>I photographed a MacBeth Chart with a CRI 93 Fluorescent light and
>>with Sunlight. I opened them in Photoshop and read the RGB values from
>>each square. The readings were extremely close for every square with
>>no indication of a color bias.
>>I dare say that the differences were probably similar to comparing two
>>shots taken in Sunlight at different times of the day or with
>>different cloud cover. In actual practice, Sunlight does not have a
>>very reliable, reproducible color temperature.
>>Bob Williams
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The MacBeth chart is printed with inks formulated to reduce the effects
> of metamerism. Real world objects do not react as kindly to fluorescent
> illumination.
>
> Sunlight may vary in its temperature but it's always CRI100. CRI ratings
> have nothing to do with color temp.

Of course not. Sunlight is CRI 100 "by definition".
But if you shoot the same exact subject at dawn, noon and dusk, they
will look vastly different. As will the same subject shot at noon in
full sun or in the shade. All have CRI 100 but the color temp may vary
by several thousand Kelvins.
Bob Williams
!