| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,931 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
327 Posts |
I bought a couple of Satco 60W max multi purpose lights: http://www.1000bulbs.com/product/82...SF77394.htmlActually I bought them awhile back but got sick and was not able to use them nor did I buy the bulbs yet. I was referring back to what you guys use for coin photography. Being it's a 60w max, I don't think I could get away with a 75WPar30 flood but is there something close that you can recommend? |
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
327 Posts |
As it turns out, I found a couple of bulbs I already bought for them but they are 75W Par30 flood. Hmmm. So what happens when you run a 75W bulb on a fixture rated at 60W. Can't to any worse than the Christmas lights right?
Burning in right now...very yellow though. I thought they were suppose to look more white?
Edited by johnstac
12/01/2010 12:49 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
397 Posts |
Doing that will build up excess heat in the wiring to the lamp, eventually causing the insulation on the wires to become brittle and break off, which will cause a short.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
How do you get them to point down at a coin?
Waredu is right - wattage ratings are about the ability to dissipate heat. 90% of an incandescent bulb's power consumption goes directly to heat. Regardless of how hot the light is to the touch, the majority of the heat exits through the base. The ability of the rest of the fixture to dissipate that heat generally causes the wattage rating - these lamps are pretty closed-in, offering little airspace around the bulb for heat to escape outward. 75's will eventually cause problems.
If they're large enough for R30's (30-eights of an inch or 3-3/4" in diameter), just about any compact fluorescent will fit and remove any heat danger completely. A 100w (equivalent) compact fluorescent draws something like 23w, and dissipates very little heat.
|
|
Valued Member
Malaysia
59 Posts |
light?bulb?erm...wat's tat 4? sorry I'm a newbie
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1248 Posts |
CFL's ? for photography?
NOT
you are better of using 60 watt or 40 watt regular incandescent lamps.
that is really more light than you will ever need for coins.
set your white balance to incandescent, your exposure to manual and play with it, and away you go. (never to automatic)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1248 Posts |
sorry, set your white balance to Tungsten....
|
|
Valued Member
United States
327 Posts |
I guess everyone has an opinion in terms of what type of light is best. When I was researching this earlier this year, I found a lot of articles touting the use of par floods. This article http://www.coinimaging.com/Lighting_shootout.html doesn't recommend any one bulb but I think he mentioned that he uses the floods himself. But yes, this 75W flood is a lot of light. Even with just one bulb. Going to study this some more. I didn't want to go to the expense of an umbrella, etc. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1248 Posts |
learn from super dave... search his posts or PM him... he is the most knowledgeable fellow here about photography..
though he knows "nothing" about Canadian coins. lololololo
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Hey, hbkiddo: :P  The type of light is completely irrelevant if you understand White Balance. The *pattern* of light thrown is more important. An R30 bulb is almost like indirect lighting I'm that the source is so large in diameter. |
|
Valued Member
United States
327 Posts |
See, and I would have thought that bright indirect light would be perfect. As much light as possible with the fastest shutter speed without washing out the image.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1248 Posts |
Super dave.....
just try the new LED lights.......simply a mess...
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Speaking generally:
Under the right circumstances - a solidly-mounted camera with a delayed shutter, a good lens and a proper orientation to the coin - exposure time does not matter. 1/4 is not a "bad" exposure under these circumstances. I advise to work towards the shortest exposure possible only because it's a "best case" scenario. Other methods also work.
Indirect light is easier to employ properly to illustrate the details of a coin. Direct light is easier to illustrate the luster. Both may be utilized effectively in the pursuit of both goals.
I am being deliberately vague; different cameras have different comfort zones. A dSLR requires a different setup, parameters and attitude than a point-and-shoot. What works for you, with your camera, may not work for me, and mine.
It is on you to learn what works best for you. We can help to point you in the right direction, but in the end analysis you have to learn your camera.
The rules change. That's the point. Beyond a few obvious absolutes, no two cameras are identical.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
211 Posts |
Quote:
CFL's ? for photography?
NOT The problem with common incandescent bublbs is that they throw mixed color temperatures. Some part of the photo may be more red than others. The way around this is to buy expensive incandescent photo lamps that have fallen out of fashion. Most incandescent photo lamps are rated at 3200 degrees. Professionals these days use CFL or LED lights because they offer total control of the color temperature, put out a lot of light for the wattage and do not burn hot. LED photo lights are expensive and best left to the pros. I suggest fluorescent lamps rated for photography. Usually Daylight lamps at 5200 degrees. Here is an example, though their prices are high: http://store.tabletopstudio-store.c...htbulbs.htmlI have seen these guys for as little as $6 a pop. |
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,931 |
|
Posted 12/01/2010 12:49 am
