It's like asking if a row boat or a canoe is a better vessel for crossing the ocean. Either would work equally well, but neither is the best solution for the task, or the best long term investment. Links would help to know which specific models you are considering and prices. If you have no previous experience with lighting you probably will not notice any difference between them.
The reasons neither is an ideal choice for studio portraits due to low power which will require higher ISOs (more noise) or long exposures which cause problems with camera and subject movement. Due to the way they create light the color spectrum and color temperature of fluorescents make getting pleasing skin tones more difficult than with flash. They are better suited for tasks like lighting stuff for sale on eBay where you can shoot long exposures on a tripod and color balance isn't as critical. While they are a cheap solution in the short term it is one you will quickly outgrow. You might spend more for an entry level studio flash like the $225 Alien Bee AB400, and initially only be able to afford one to use with a reflector like window light, but its an investment that you can build on.
If you are looking for a cheap way to learn lighting you should consider just using a north facing window with indirect light. I learned that way from a top pro who used window light exclusively for formal portraits. It's the same light old master painters put their subjects in, and will produce the same look in photographic portraits with nothing more than your camera and something to hold a $3 piece of white foam core as a reflector. Even if you do buy the lights you are considering you should also try the window approach, if only for comparison.
cgardner makes a good argument for using flash, but assuming you know all that already and still want one of these, I'd go for the Impact lights based on cost alone. The reviews are really good too, though.
That light includes bulbs and has the most and best feedback of anything in that category on B&H, while the Spiderlites don't come with bulbs and are more than double the cost. I just started playing with an LED light and the modeling lights on my flashes, so I understand the appeal of continuous lighting, but I'd need a good reason to invest a lot of money in a fluorescent kit. So, are they really worth it to you? If so, then why?
Jay Connor wrote:
...wondering if anyone could provide info re the relative quality of these two brands...
To answer the actual question, rather than editorializing...
The Spiderlites are very robustly built, using metal frames and ceramic lamp sockets. They have to be, because they're designed to work with halogen, as well as with fluorescents. The Impacts are made with mostly plastic, and can't handle hot lights, but the cost saving is significant.
In addition to being lower in cost, another advantage of the Impact units is that they potentially have more control of intensity. The Wescott Spiderlite TD-6 and Impact Octacool-6 both have six lamps and three switches, but Impact has in addition the Octacool-9 that has nine lamps and five switches...and is still cheaper (~ $260 w/ reflector, soft box, lamps, etc.) than the TD-6 ($400+ for fixture alone).
Although it's true that you usually get what you pay for, and although the Spiderlites are very well built, if you are going to get CFL units I think you'd be happier with Octacool-9s than with any of the Spiderlites.
On the other hand, if you want to use halogen lamps the Octacools won't do at all, and so the Spiderlites would be the way to go.
It should be noted that while some may say fluorescent lighting isn't suitable for portraiture, many successful photographers are doing just that.
The "top pro" that Chuck mentions above was one of them. That person -- the late Monte Zucker -- was a proponent of Spiderlites and used them in his own studio, and Wescott developed a package based on that use and bearing his name:
BrianO: I wasn't aware that. But then Monte never saw a sponsor's product he didn't like. He didn't use studio lights when I worked for him but there was a set of Rollei studio lights with dish reflectors in the storage room he'd roll out and use in classes.
cgardner wrote:
...Monte never saw a sponsor's product he didn't like.
Yeah, one would hope that no one would represent a product he or she didn't believe in, but -- human nature being what it is -- when the bills come due and there's a lucrative sponsorship offer, one can come to believe in things that one otherwise might not.
I got a lot out of a Monte Zucker seminar some years back, but I have no illusions about the neutrality of any equipment recommendations given. He came across as a very sincere, dedicated teacher, but he was also very clearly a successful businessman.
I was aware Monte was using Westcott lights but though they were flash powered. Looked at the price and jaw dropped. Just one set of spare bulbs is nearly 200 bucks per light . My experience with life of other CFLs has not been good lifespan-wise.
p.1 #10 · Wescott Spiderlits vs Impact Fluorescent
I would look at the total watt available. The impact link I saw was only 150watt which is worthless. I would look for a system that will allow the use of 85watt bulbs as a minimum and even 150 watt, Now with CFL the watt of bulb is NOT the output. You want a high watt bulb that has a very high output. Look at 1000bulbs.com for comparison. A 85 watt should be close to 400 watt of light measured in lumens. Most light units will not hold the bulb due to the size of the base but many will. Photoflex Constellation is one of them you can use for comparison. Think it uses 3-150 watt bulbs . Stay away form hot tungsten bulbs.
p.1 #11 · Wescott Spiderlits vs Impact Fluorescent
jefferies1 wrote:
I would look at the total watt available. ...Now with CFL the watt of bulb is NOT the output.
As you say, the wattage of CFL bulbs shouldn't be compared to the wattage of a tungsten bulb. Even comparing wattages of different CFL bulbs can be misleading. The proper measure of light output is lumens, and lumens per watt can vary widely between different brands and models of bulbs.
jefferies1 wrote:
...The impact link I saw was only 150watt which is worthless. ...Photoflex Constellation is one of them you can use for comparison. Think it uses 3-150 watt bulbs...
Yes, the Constellation 3 is quite bright for a CFL unit. Each CoolStar 150 bulb puts out 8000 lumens, according to Photoflex, for a total of 24,000 lumens. You are limited to three brightness levels though. The bulbs are about $100 each, or $300 total.
The Wescott Spiderlite TD-6 uses 6 50-watt bulbs that put out 5500 lumens each, for a total of 33,000 lumens. Like the Constellation, the TD-6 is limited to three steps of variablility. The bulbs they specify are about $40 each, or $240 total.
The Impact Octacool-9 specifies 9 28-watt bulbs, although the ones I've seen actually had Eiko 30-watt bulbs that put out 1500 lumens each, for a total of 13,500 lumens. The Octacool-9 has five levels of output. Replacement bulbs (Eiko 30W) are about $20 each, or $180 total.
When comparing prices of the light fixtures, it's important to note that most of them don't include bulbs or modifiers, but the Impact units do.
p.1 #12 · Wescott Spiderlits vs Impact Fluorescent
I agree for the most part but did you know Monte Zucker had shifted to using the flo lights for many of his portraits?
[edit] - Oops, looks like someone else pointed this out. He was using the spyderlite series.
In the long run I think LED will replace both flash and flo but the current technology doesn't have a good lumens/$$$ ratio.
cgardner wrote:
It's like asking if a row boat or a canoe is a better vessel for crossing the ocean. Either would work equally well, but neither is the best solution for the task, or the best long term investment. Links would help to know which specific models you are considering and prices. If you have no previous experience with lighting you probably will not notice any difference between them.
The reasons neither is an ideal choice for studio portraits due to low power which will require higher ISOs (more noise) or long exposures which cause problems with camera and subject movement. Due to the way they create light the color spectrum and color temperature of fluorescents make getting pleasing skin tones more difficult than with flash. They are better suited for tasks like lighting stuff for sale on eBay where you can shoot long exposures on a tripod and color balance isn't as critical. While they are a cheap solution in the short term it is one you will quickly outgrow. You might spend more for an entry level studio flash like the $225 Alien Bee AB400, and initially only be able to afford one to use with a reflector like window light, but its an investment that you can build on.
If you are looking for a cheap way to learn lighting you should consider just using a north facing window with indirect light. I learned that way from a top pro who used window light exclusively for formal portraits. It's the same light old master painters put their subjects in, and will produce the same look in photographic portraits with nothing more than your camera and something to hold a $3 piece of white foam core as a reflector. Even if you do buy the lights you are considering you should also try the window approach, if only for comparison.
p.1 #13 · Wescott Spiderlits vs Impact Fluorescent
Jay Connor wrote:
Thank you all for your replies
@Chuck - thanks for your thoughts but it wasnt a ? of flash vs fluorescent
Financially speaking it will make a difference very soon. If you haven't already, it is very important to consider the things pointed out.
I have a continuous light setup and a flash setup and use both. Would I be happy with only having the continuous? No. Would I be happy with only the flash? Yes. This is because of the very reasons pointed out by Chuck.
