Joe Edelman posts an informative article and a step by step video for making a no flicker fluorescent studio light set up.....and it's inexpensive.

http://www.joeedelman.com/blog/photography/lighting/no-flicker-fluorescent-studio-lights-cheap/

Thanks for that!

You're welcome.

He's mostly right but you can get electronic ballasts that work with T12's also.

Generally, the higher the frequency, the better. Look for 20 kHz to 40 kHz range.

Also, you may want to consider filtering out the UV. Plus, I recommend staying away from dimmable ballasts due to potential color shifts.

onetrack wrote:
He's mostly right but you can get electronic ballasts that work with T12's also.


Yes, but why would you want to? Use T12s that is. Unless you have a large inventory of T12 bulbs to use. I have some electronic shop lights which can power either T8 or T12 bulbs in them. But I always use T8 as they are more efficient and are actually brighter than T12s after a period of time as they don't lose as much brightness over their lifetime as the T12s.

Nice setup, but in one video he calls his side-by-side lighting setup "Butterfly" lighting, and says you can always identify Butterfly lighting by the side-by-side catchlights in the subject's eyes.

Gee, I always thought Butterfly lighting got its name from the butterfly-shaped shadow the high-and-centered key light casts under the subject's nose.

He must have gone to the same photo school as one of our more-prolific posters who frequently changes the meanings of common terms to fit his own ideas.

I noticed that too BrianO

BrianO wrote:
Nice setup, but in one video he calls his side-by-side lighting setup "Butterfly" lighting, and says you can always identify Butterfly lighting by the side-by-side catchlights in the subject's eyes.

Gee, I always thought Butterfly lighting got its name from the butterfly-shaped shadow the high-and-centered key light casts under the subject's nose.

He must have gone to the same photo school as one of our more-prolific posters who frequently changes the meanings of common terms to fit his own ideas.

Joe must be doing something right. He gets $1k for a sitting.

jzucker wrote:
BrianO wrote:
Nice setup, but in one video he calls his side-by-side lighting setup "Butterfly" lighting, and says you can always identify Butterfly lighting by the side-by-side catchlights in the subject's eyes.

Gee, I always thought Butterfly lighting got its name from the butterfly-shaped shadow the high-and-centered key light casts under the subject's nose.

He must have gone to the same photo school as one of our more-prolific posters who frequently changes the meanings of common terms to fit his own ideas.

Joe must be doing something right. He gets $1k for a sitting.

The price a photographer commands has nothing to do with the quality of work or equipment, it has to do with the quality of the marketing and sales efforts.

<Chas>

cwebster wrote:
jzucker wrote:
BrianO wrote:
Nice setup, but in one video he calls his side-by-side lighting setup "Butterfly" lighting, and says you can always identify Butterfly lighting by the side-by-side catchlights in the subject's eyes.

Gee, I always thought Butterfly lighting got its name from the butterfly-shaped shadow the high-and-centered key light casts under the subject's nose.

He must have gone to the same photo school as one of our more-prolific posters who frequently changes the meanings of common terms to fit his own ideas.

Joe must be doing something right. He gets $1k for a sitting.

The price a photographer commands has nothing to do with the quality of work or equipment, it has to do with the quality of the marketing and sales efforts.

<Chas>


Well then who determines real worth? A bunch of cats sitting around in a french cafe smoking hand rolled cigarettes and wearing berets?

jzucker wrote:
cwebster wrote:
jzucker wrote:
BrianO wrote:
Nice setup, but in one video he calls his side-by-side lighting setup "Butterfly" lighting, and says you can always identify Butterfly lighting by the side-by-side catchlights in the subject's eyes.

Gee, I always thought Butterfly lighting got its name from the butterfly-shaped shadow the high-and-centered key light casts under the subject's nose.

He must have gone to the same photo school as one of our more-prolific posters who frequently changes the meanings of common terms to fit his own ideas.

Joe must be doing something right. He gets $1k for a sitting.

The price a photographer commands has nothing to do with the quality of work or equipment, it has to do with the quality of the marketing and sales efforts.

<Chas>


Well then who determines real worth? A bunch of cats sitting around in a french cafe smoking hand rolled cigarettes and wearing berets?

No, a bunch of cynical Internet experts.

cwebster wrote: The price a photographer commands has nothing to do with the quality of work or equipment, it has to do with the quality of the marketing and sales efforts.

I don't agree. A truly bad photographer won't be able to command high prices -- at least not for long. There is some skill/art required to get into -- and to stay in -- the business.

I agree, though, that marketing can play a strong roll; I've seen many photographers whom I admire that I think are just as good as the "names," but who don't make nearly the money because they're not a "name."

jzucker wrote: ...who determines real worth?

What is "real worth"? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The market determines market value, but value and worth are not the same thing to all people.

Classic example: the Seattle Art Museum has a pile of chicken wire with some paint splashed on it sitting on the floor in one of their galleries. They consider it art, I consider it trash. To them, it has worth. I wouldn't take it if they gave it to me.

BrianO wrote:


jzucker wrote: ...who determines real worth?

What is "real worth"? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The market determines market value, but value and worth are not the same thing to all people.




Beauty is in the eye of the check book holder.

Right. I agree that popularity doesn't measure artistic value. If it did, lady gaga and britany spears would be heralded into the next century along with bartok, bach, coltrane, etc. Anyone with a modicum of understanding about music/art knows that gaga and spears are just pop fads.

But who makes the call? The aforementioned cats in the french cafe? The staff at the art museum? I once saw an exhibit in the SFMOCA of blank canvases. Each canvas had slightly different lighting. People were actually visiting the museum to see this exhibit. The fact that it was picked out by a group of alleged experts validate it? I think not.

The only true measure of an artists worth is by a panel of true experts in the field. And I don't mean art critics. I'm talking about the best artists in that particular field. But then, who determines who they are?

It's a recursive problem and IMO, it can't be solved, nor can the argument be won. There is always someone who claims that lady gaga is a brilliant musician and performance artist.

I am looking for the proper adaptor to mount this light upright to a lightstand. In the video, he says that he uses "an old reflector collar" mount. I found an umbrella mount made by Impact (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656152-REG/Impact_9101880_Umbrella_Bracket_with_Adjustable.html) , however, the opening is not wide enough to accomadate the 1/2 inch conduit pipe that is attached to the light. Has anyone had any luck in finding the right adaptor for this? Thanks.

tkhasawinah wrote: I am looking for the proper adaptor to mount this light upright to a lightstand.

One option is a "Super clamp," which is an accessory that everyone doing lighting could benefit by having a few of.

Combined with an umbrella mount or other light-stand tilt/swivel head it should do the trick.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546356-REG/Manfrotto_035RL_035RL_Super_Clamp_with.html

Another option, a bit more expensive if you already have an umbrella mount and only need a clamp, would be to get a complete reflector holder and just remove the arm when not needed.

If you ever plan on using disk reflectors you'd have a holder in your kit, and it will work for your fluorescent lights in the mean time.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/744219-REG/Photoflex_DL_BHLDRCOMP_Telescopic_Light_Disc_Holder.html

This one might not have the exact diameter you need, and might present other challenges, so all in all I think a Super clamp is a more flexible option.

tkhasawinah wrote:
I am looking for the proper adaptor to mount this light upright to a lightstand. ... to accomadate the 1/2 inch conduit pipe that is attached to the light.

The proper item is called a grip head. Here's the basic version (Matthews brand):



The receiver portion mounts over the baby pin of your stand, while the fixture's pipe is gripped by the knuckle portion. Of the two through-holes offered by the Matthews knuckle, you would probably use the 3/8". This grip head can be mounted upside-down to accommodate nonconforming baby pins.

Ref:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/139495-REG/Matthews_350580_Hollywood_Grip_Head.html

I much prefer this grip head, much more flexible

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3581-REG/Avenger_D200_D200_Grip_Head.html



<Chas>

Good point, Chas. I like my Avenger gear, too!

Thank you guys for the solution.