Looking at model pictures I've taken since I got back into photography, I find those taken with old-style photofloods to be far superior than those taken with new halogens. I stopped shooting with photofloods because I had cheap, clamp-on reflectors, the type you buy at Wal-Mart for $6.99, rated for 100-watt bulbs. With 1000-watt photofloods plugged into them, they were an obvious safety hazard--so I stopped. I had three reflectors, which I clamped/duct-taped to old tripods and stepladders. I replaced them with two halogen lightstands from Sears, each stand with two 1000-watt lights. So I have 4000 watts of primarily lighting vs. 3000 watts. My images under the halogens seem very flat. I've learned that they are rated at a color temperature of 2700 degrees C, as opposed to the photofloods 3200 C. With a digital camera, that's easily corrected. I've further learned that they take a while to reach maximum output and their rated color temperature. But 4000 watts of halogen seems much less than 3000 watts of photoflood. Yes, their are now four heads rather than three, but I usually point one halogen straight up to the ceiling for a diffused fill. Still, my halogen shots seem flat compared with the photoflood shots. Any ideas?
Pete, it may help if you try diffusing the halogen light. That long skinny element in those work lights gives off a very harsh light. If you have someone in your area that does stained glass work they may be able to supply you with some small pieces of "frosted" glass of various textures and translucency(sp) to mount in front of the lamps. Those 2'x4' plastic panels for suspended ceiling lights with work also, but you have to keep them several feet from the lights or they will melt. (Don’t ask me how I know this) Nelson
Pete, go to your local Photo store or on line and get an white studio umbrella, usually pretty cheap around $20 bucks.
