# Recommendations for beginner product photography lighting



## Adnada88 (Oct 20, 2012)

Hello.  I am a new ebay/etsy seller, and I am wanting to buy lighting equipment to aid in my listings.  I sell vintage clothing/housewares.  I use a dress form for clothing.  I have been using a solid wall in my house as the backdrop (light blue/gray, room is 12'x12') with my pretty basic olympus 7.1 megapixel digital camera.  I have done a little research, and think reflective umbrellas will be the best lighting source for me.  Here are the umbrellas I am considering.  (I want to stay under $100).

40" Black Silver JS Umbrella Photo Studio Photography Lighting Light Kit JU157 | eBay
Julius Studio Photography 33" 210W Blk Slv Umbrella Continuous Light Kit JUK147 | eBay

*Are reflective umbrellas the best tool for me?
*What size?
*What wattage might I need?

Thanks for your expertise!


----------



## terri (Oct 21, 2012)

Hi, and welcome to the forum.        I've moved your post from the Introduction forum to here, where you might get more viewings and hopefully, helpful replies to your question.    Good luck!


----------



## tirediron (Oct 22, 2012)

SAVE YOUR MONEY!  To refer to that as "junk" is to do a disservice to real junk the world over.  4 35 watt CFL bulbs are going to provide so little illumination that might as well not be there at all, and as for "Julius Studio" being a name recognized by photographers...  maybe, but sure as heck not by me!

There are a couple of ways you could go, but the first thing I would suggest is purchasing the book "Light, Science, Magic" which will tell you wayyyyyyyyyyy more than you could ever possibly want to know about the science (and it is a science) of lighting.  I would also stroll over to the Strobist Blog and read through their Lighting 101 section.

Since you're dealing with people-size products (dresses on forms), I would approach this just like a portrait shoot, and look at the Flashpoint series of monolights from Adorama.  They're only going to be slightly more expensive than the kit you've linked to, and the results will be many, many orders of magnitude better!  

I would suggest two lights in the ~200 watt/second (w/s) range with soft-boxes, as, IMO, they provide a more even light, and are somewhat easier for the inexperienced person to work with.


----------



## Mully (Oct 22, 2012)

The great thing about digital photography is that you can shoot a lot of images without costing anything, so with that in mind, read, shoot, look.  Keep notes so you have a map where you are going.  Look at some of the very sucessful studio photographer work and see if you can figure out how the still life or product was lit..... keep working and your work will get better over time.  Best of luck, I was a studio photographer for 40 years and it was a great career.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2012)

Adnada88,

For items that are not moving at all, like dresses on forms, those kits you linked to will work just fine to get shots good enough for ebay and etsy sales pages. Between the two, go with the bigger umbrellas and brightest lights you can afford to stick in them.

The lighting kits you're linking to are made for a very limited kind of use, and would not be usable for shooting people or pets because they put out so little light they will require longer shutter speeds, and that means living, breathing things will almost surely be blurry if you try to use them for that purpose, so don't try to use live people as models for your stuff if you're going to use one of these kits.  Stick with stuff that doesn't move or breath at all, and you should be fine.

That said, people make fine photos of static objects that aren't moving (like dresses hung on a form) with very little light all the time.  It can even be done well with just a flashlight and some skill and patience.  Light is light, and if you have a long enough shutter time, you can light up a dark room at night like it's daytime with the dimmest night light you can find.

200 watt second strobes are nice to have if you're going to shoot people or pets or things that move, and you need to freeze them.  But they also cost about $150 each (that's $300 for two), plus you still need the stands, umbrellas or softboxes, and a way to fire them, which takes you way beyond your budget of less than $100, and is overkill for shooting static objects, IMHO.

Most folks here are big on good gear, and for good reasons - it allows the most versatile range of uses, holds up better than the cheap stuff, and retains fairly good resale value when they decide they suck as photographers and want to move on to scrapbooking.  Some few are outright gear snobs who think if you're not using the absolute very bestest of the best and spending tens of thousands of dollars on the best names in photography gear, you're shooting with junk and can't possibly get a decent shot.  Many of those types simply have more money than brains, and like to show it off (though their photography itself is usually lacking, tbh).

_(To be clear, Tirediron isn't one of those extremists, btw.  I wouldn't want it thought that I'm picking on him or even pointing to him, just because we disagree on this.  I'm definitely not.  Moving on...)_

The good news for you is that the "only the best will work" argument is not necessarily true, especially when it comes to shooting static items.  Lots of folks make stunningly fantastic photos on the cheap with "inferior" and DIY gear that the snobs sneer at, and it doesn't matter one bit.  All that matters in the end is the finished photo itself, not how it was made, nor what "professional" (or not) gear was used.

The kits you've listed will meet your current needs as described, and not much more.  You'll be able to shoot the dresses or other static objects, though you'll need to use longer exposures, which means you also need a tripod or other means of solidly positioning the camera so that it cannot move at all during the shooting.  Beyond that, you'll also need a way to fire the camera without touching it, using a remote trigger or even the camera's self-timer, because the slightest movement of either the item or the camera will blur the shot with that low light kit.

"Light, Science and Magic" and the Strobist Blog are still very good resources for you to learn more about how to light objects, no matter what lighting you use, even low light, and I too highly recommend them both to you.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 22, 2012)

> "Light, Science and Magic" and the Strobist Blog are still very good resources for you to learn more about how to light objects, no matter what lighting you use, even low light, and I too highly recommend them both to you.


I'll second the recommendation for 'Light: Science & Magic'.  It can teach you the principles of how to use light, which is much more important that what gear you buy.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 22, 2012)

Sooooooooooo.... round two eh Buckster?  OP: As you can tell, Buckster and I are on different pages when it comes to this sort of thing. I agree that many people tend to go overboard on gear, and you don't want to get more than you need; I certainly wouldn't recommend a couple of 500w/s Profoto lights, but I also believe that it's too easy to get less than you need. 

I'll explain my position a little more clearly.

First, while I am not familiar with this particular vendor/product, I have seen lots of similar stuff, and I stand by my statement that the quality is lacking. I would be surprised if you got six months of use out of them.

Second: In the kit you've linked to, each stand has two 35 watt CFL bulbs, for a total of 70 watts. Using either a reflecting or shoot-through umbrella, a loss of one stop of light is fairly typical, meaning that your effective illumination is going to be about 35 watts. Put a 40 watt bulb in a lamp, and see how much additional light that gives for photographs. I think you'll find that it doesn't give a lot.

Third: I can't actually see the price of the kit you've linked to because the browser I'm using isn't playing nicely with eBay, but can see that it was $240 and that there's a $50 shipping charge. If you go over to Adorama, you can get this kit consisting of 2 160 w/s monolights, stands and umbrellas for $200. This will provide far more light and better quality components (although at this price point, the stands and umbrellas aren't going to be first-rate) for what I assume is a similar price.

I did miss the budget in your OP, and while this will be more like $200 than $100, my experience tells me that this is a case where a little more invested up-front will pay dividends sooner rather than later. I'm willing to bet that if you do go with the eBay kit, you'll be buying another one inside of six months.

Buckster.... your rebuttal?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2012)

I would actually rather have a 300- to 500-Watt quartz-halogen work light from Home Depot, and a 42 x 72 inch diffusion panel to aim it through, as my light source for dresses and static products. Of course, I learned to light using "panels" many years ago, and am familiar with how versatile they actually are. I honestly think that the SINGLE, most-versatile light modifier is....a "scrim", or "panel", which is nothing more than a frame (metal, or wood, or PVC pipe) in a square, or rectangular shape, and fitted with a single layer of thin, semi-transparent, white-ish material as a diffuser.The frame and its attached diffuser are simply placed in front of a light source of almost any type or kind, and then the softened light is allowed to shine onto the subject. White, rip-stop nylon fabric is the most common fabric in use today as diffusion material. A panel frame can be made from four lengths of PVC pipe and four elbow joints, for about $10, at Home Depot. The fabric is available from Fabrit Hut, or JoeAnne Fabrics, etc,etc.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 22, 2012)

Way to go Derrel.... start thinking outside the box and ruin everything! 

I have to agree with this.  I think this would be a good, practical, inexpensive solution.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Buckster.... your rebuttal?


Sure, why not...



tirediron said:


> Sooooooooooo.... round two eh Buckster?


Nah, just another opinion is all.



tirediron said:


> First, while I am not familiar with this particular vendor/product, I have seen lots of similar stuff, and I stand by my statement that the quality is lacking. I would be surprised if you got six months of use out of them.


It's basically a set of light sockets and bulbs with on/off switches.  Not exactly high-tech, and not very prone to failing.  Assuming you don't go out of your way to abuse them, they ought to last as long as any lamp.



tirediron said:


> Second: In the kit you've linked to, each stand has two 35 watt CFL bulbs, for a total of 70 watts. Using either a reflecting or shoot-through umbrella, a loss of one stop of light is fairly typical, meaning that your effective illumination is going to be about 35 watts. Put a 40 watt bulb in a lamp, and see how much additional light that gives for photographs. I think you'll find that it doesn't give a lot.


What you're apparently not taking into account in your description that makes it seem like they're the equivalent of night lights is that a 35 watt CFL gives off the lumens of about a 150 watt incandescent bulb.  That means that two of them in one lamp give off the light of about three 100 watt bulbs, and two of those setups give off the glow of about SIX 100 watt bulbs all aimed via reflective umbrellas at a subject just a few feet away from them.  And there's no way that setup is going to lose a full stop of light.



tirediron said:


> Third: I can't actually see the price of the kit you've linked to because the browser I'm using isn't playing nicely with eBay, but can see that it was $240 and that there's a $50 shipping charge.


Ahem...









tirediron said:


> If you go over to Adorama, you can get this kit consisting of 2 160 w/s monolights,


You said you recommend 200ws Flashpoints.  Show us THAT kit please.



tirediron said:


> stands and umbrellas for $200.


With shipping, that's more than double the OP's stated budget, and still doesn't include a way to trigger them.



tirediron said:


> This will provide far more light


Again, unnecessary for static objects, as stated earlier.



tirediron said:


> and better quality components (although at this price point, the stands and umbrellas aren't going to be first-rate)


Which are also unnecessary, given the OP's stated needs, which do not include throwing them around, in and out of vehicles and dragging them all over the countryside on remote shoots. They're going to be set up in a room for static shoots.



tirediron said:


> for what I assume is a similar price.


A picture is worth a thousand words.  See the picture I included above, and be refuted.



tirediron said:


> I did miss the budget in your OP, and while this will be more like $200 than $100,


Pardon the interruption, but with shipping and a trigger system, more than $200, and possibly much more, since somebody will probably jump in and recommend PWs for a trigger system, since anything less is just "junk".  And let's not forget that it's still not the 200ws kit you originally touted as your stated recommendation.



tirediron said:


> my experience tells me that this is a case where a little more invested up-front


You mean, "more than twice as much, and probably at least three times as much as your budget allows, even with cheap triggers (which the gear snobs will guarantee are junk that won't last you 6 months)".



tirediron said:


> will pay dividends sooner rather than later. I'm willing to bet that if you do go with the eBay kit, you'll be buying another one inside of six months.


I have plenty of cheap ebay/chinese knockoff gear, including cheap light kits that have lasted me up to 10 years so far, and gear snobs have said the same thing about it - won't last 6 months.  I use it alongside or even instead of the expensive gear I've gotten over the years on the recommendations of the gear snobs, and I'm here to tell you that from my experience and point of view, the gear snobs are often quite full of it.  The only thing that I can think of that ever failed me are umbrellas when they blow over - and none survive that, even the expensive ones.  So, word to the wise: weigh down or tie down your light stands so they don't get knocked over by accident.

I will also note that I've drug both the cheap and expensive gear all over the country with me, and it's all still holding up very well.  I also make and use a lot of DIY gear, including light panels like Derrel described (though without the halogen work lights), and they work just fine too.

There's your rebuttal Tirediron.  Hope you enjoyed it.  :mrgreen:


----------



## tirediron (Oct 22, 2012)

Buckster said:


> ...You said you recommend 200ws Flashpoints. Show us THAT kit please.


I said "~200"; the tilde being a commonly used symbol to indicate "approximate" or "about".  I'm not familiar enough with Flashpoint lights to know off the top of my head what ratings they come in, and simply provided a value which I was confident would provide enough power, without having a wasteful surplus.



Buckster said:


> ...which do not include throwing them around, in and out of vehicles and dragging them all over the countryside on remote shoots. They're going to be set up in a room for static shoots...


  Yes... but I am guessing that the OP will have to change the angle, open and close the umbrellas, etc.  In my experience with this calibre of gear, the weak points are going to be in the joints and moving parts.  


Buckster said:


> A picture is worth a thousand words. See the picture I included above, and be refuted.


I had no doubt; I quite literally cannot see that information on the browser I have on this computer.



Buckster said:


> Pardon the interruption, but with shipping and a trigger system, more than $200, and possibly much more, since somebody will probably jump in and recommend PWs for a trigger system, since anything less is just "junk". And let's not forget that it's still not the 200ws kit you originally touted as your stated recommendation.


My thought was that the OP could use the camera's built-in flash (since he/she doesn't indicated what model of camera, it's possible that it's a simply P&S or bridge without even a hot-shoe) to trigger the monolights using their built-in slave cells.  (BTW... since the flash is already built-in to the camera, that additional cost would be "0").



tirediron said:


> my experience tells me that this is a case where a little more invested up-front


You mean, "more than twice as much, and probably at least three times as much as your budget allows, even with cheap triggers (which the gear snobs will guarantee are junk that won't last you 6 months)".



Buckster said:


> The only thing that I can think of that ever failed me are umbrellas when they blow over - and none survive that, even the expensive ones. So, word to the wise: weigh down or tie down your light stands so they don't get knocked over by accident.


  An EXCELLENT recommendation!  I've found that my better umbrellas do survive better than the cheap ones, but since you can never accurately determine the relative force with which each struck the ground, it's a moot point.  I have found cheap lightstands VERY prone to damage failure however.



Buckster said:


> There's your rebuttal Tirediron. Hope you enjoyed it.


I always enjoy a healthy, respectful debate!


----------

