I haven't tried it yet, but some of the new LED arrays that are meant to replace incandescents might be useful as weak fill. I have a couple of fixtures from my old film days designed to be used with photoflood hot lights that I've used with compact flourescent spot-reflector bulbs successfully, and they could be replaced with LEDs just as easily.
Two possible problems are color spectra, and intensity. Some reports I've read suggest that "white" LEDs have spikes at some frequencies and "troughs" at others, which could affect color rendering. They're also, as with CFLs, dimmer than most flash units, which could limit the usefulness outdoors where they're competing against bright sunlight.
And of course there's the issue of power source. Most are designed to be run off A/C mains power, unless you're modifying flashlight-type LEDs.
Right now I use 2 580's in one small soft box with radio poppers. I was thinking they would be a lot more reliable but maybe hard for the subject to look at?
Constant lights like the one you showed have some advantages over flash in the what-you-see-is-what-you-get-during-setup category, but there are some problems, too. Unless you're shooting video, I don't know that the advantages would out-weigh the disadvantages, but you may find that it does what you want it to do.
If you go that route, let us know how they work for you.
You lose your ability to close down the ambient light with your shutter speed and these light panels are big, bulky and expensive making them an especially poor choice for location work.
Right now I use 2 580's in one small soft box with radio poppers. I was thinking they would be a lot more reliable but maybe hard for the subject to look at?
1000 watt is not that much light. You would have to be within a foot or two to have any effect during the day and thay would be early evening. Would not even see it on a bright day.
Right now I use 2 580's in one small soft box with radio poppers. I was thinking they would be a lot more reliable but maybe hard for the subject to look at?
That is an expensive LED light but I think it'll be just what you want.
Use the led lighting to save energy.
LEDs have come a long way since 1972. If you watched the Times Square New Year's Eve ball drop you saw it illuminated by 9,576 white LEDs which replaced the 600 incandescent bulbs before. http://www.topledsupplier.com/LED-Street-Light_270.html
You could really make a use of the LED lights instead of flash because you can see what the photo looks like before you actually take it, as oppose to the flash light you can't see much of the end results.
Here are the LED panels we use at Big City Lights They are cheeper and lighter, and they have a very powerful out put. You can also run them off a battery pack if needed.
Those big light sources are fine if you want big flat light sources, but if you want a gridded spot, or even a 60 or 70 degree reflector you're out of luck.
And any specular highlights will be full of dots and lines, such as are the reflections on her gloves.
As for saving energy, you won't save much over a similarly powered strobe. Remember these are on all the time, strobes are momentary and produce lots more light.
Asmaa20 wrote:
You could really make a use of the LED lights instead of flash because you can see what the photo looks like before you actually take it, as oppose to the flash light you can't see much of the end results.
Comparing big LED arrays with small flash guns isn't realistic. The comparison should be with studio strobes, which almost universally have modeling lamps.
Asmaa20 wrote:
...Here are the LED panels we use at Big City Lights
You mean the LED panels you sell at Big City Lights, right? If you're going to tout a commercial product from a commercial site you need to be up front about it.
Saw a demo of a 60LED and 300LED light and both were very dim. The 60 was less light than a 60 watt light bulb IMO. I don't see how you could use that for macro unless you are shooting very long exposures. No way you could use it for insects. The 200 was a little better but for the size of the fixture I was unimpressed with the light output.
The 300LED light seemed to be about the equivalent of a 150 watt bulb. Also, they are very directional and harsh. Compared to a 500 watt incandescent light in a softbox next to the 300, the 500 light was MUCH softer and more evenly distributed due to the light spilling from the sides of the bulb into the interior of the softbox. The 300 was more like a spotlight. Also, I've heard the battery and power supplies are heavy and fragile on the cheaper LED array units.
if you not need very bright the use condition you can use white led strips led strips,each white 5050 SMD LED have 16lm,if the
led strips with 300LEDs,it can replace the led bulbs.
The problem facing a hobbyist is that there's no one size fits all solution for lighting. LEDs might be good for close in still life or low light photography, but speedlights are a better solution for "run and gun" PJ style shooting and general photography. But when it comes to things like portraits or serious product lighting where power and control are needed then studio lights are a better choice. If I were shooting for hire and couldn't afford whatever tool was best suited for the tasks I was hired to perform I'd re-evaluate my business plan.
LEDs are a solution to the heat problem of continuous sources such as tungsten/halogen. So are fluorescents. It's just a matter of whether the tool fits the task, and if better or more cost effective tools are available.
Apart from the heat problem other reason flash is used for still photography is power and logistics. If you need more light than LEDs and Fluorescents output the next viable option is speedlights, but they lack modeling and limit modifier options. Battery/Inverters like Vagabond changed the paradigm for location lighting several years ago, and recent innovation like the lithium batteries have make them even more practical for static shooting, but they aren't a viable replacement for general "run and gun" style shooting where being portable takes precedence over control and precise placement of the lighting.
So logistically it distills down to whether or not you need the freedom of shooting with a flash on the camera and another on a stand with speedlights you can move around with, or if you plan to shoot everything with static lighting set-ups with the lights on the stands. Power and cost-wise LEDs just aren't as practical for either task.
Consider that by time time you haul and set up several stands and modifiers the only difference between using speedlight vs studio monolights logisitically is carrying a few more pounds of gear, but you get more power, modeling lights, and the ability to use a huge assortment of modifiers: all things that the other options lack. Cost-wise monolights like AB800s are less expensive that either system speedlights and far less expensive that a similar powered LED array.
I used speedlights and window light (for portraits) for many years but finally decided to get studio lights when I had space to leave them set up. I don't use them much, but enjoy the convenience and better results I get when I use them. I haven't bought inverters because I don't shoot for hire and thus am not motivated to haul my studio gear outdoors. I make due there as best I can with the speedlights.
The only place I use LED lighting is residential lighting outdoors on the porch and lamp post in the yard because they are cheaper to run, changing the tungsten bulbs was a PITA, and I found them for less than $4 each at Costco
