650 Fresnel with Daylight Gel??

G

Gene Sung

Veteran
I was thinking of getting some Fluorescent lights and probably also a 650 Fresnel (Tungsten) to compliment it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I get the 650 Fresnel and gel it with a daylight gel, it cut's it down 1 1/2 stops so it basically becomes a 150w daylight fresnel.

With that said, will the daylight gelled Fresnel still have the hard light characteristics of Tungsten? Or does it acquire soft light characteristics like a Fluorescent?

I'm probably going to use the Fresnel as a background light with a Cookie, so I'm hoping that if gelled, it still has the hard light characteristics.
 
1 1/2 stops would be brighter than a 150w
full CTB cuts your light by almost 2 stops so you are closer to a 200w instrument.

the fresnel remains a hard light, not diffused or soft like a fluorescent.
 
CB_Radio said:
1 1/2 stops would be brighter than a 150w
full CTB cuts your light by almost 2 stops so you are closer to a 200w instrument.

the fresnel remains a hard light, not diffused or soft like a fluorescent.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify more specifically
1.5 stops light loss would be around 245w
2 stops light loss (full CTB) would be more around 160w.


These outputs are based off of light stops. I rounded slightly and intensity can differ.

Meaning a 650 with two stops of loss outputs as if a 160w bulb is in the same housing. When comparing lights, it's important to take into account the size of the lights lens, housing, parabolic reflector and etc. For example a 1k par will put out MUCH more light than a 1k fresnel. Both are tungsten units, but one has to go through a lens and the other has a more aggressive reflector. See what I'm saying?
 
Last edited:
I was wondering what kind of light kit you were tying to set up? IMHO, using a small fresnel, as a "Background" light through a cookie would be a chore for that kind of light, especially with a full CTB gel on it. I don't really consider a fresnel fixture a "Hard light", as the lens smooths the light out, and even though they do throw distinct shadows, the graduation between highlight and shadow is smoothed by the lens. I would consider a "Hard" light to be more on the line of the light given off by open faced or focused instruments. If you want a light for background lighting through a cookie, for, I assume, the venetian blinds look, I would pick up a couple of Par 64 cans, with 1K full spot bulbs in them. These types of lights are available very cheap from stage lighting or DJ lighting suppliers, and I just bought 4 of them off of eBay for under $90.00 (without bulbs). Now to use them on stands you would need to get a stand adaptor, and those are cheap also.

Now if you are going to pick up fluorescent lights (the tube, T-12 Kino-Flo type), you can get tungsten balanced or day light balanced tubes for them, so the gelling of tungsten incandescence lights would not be an issue. For this you should look for what are called Optima 32 flo tubes that are tungsten balanced (3200 K), or Optima 50 tubes that are daylight balanced (well 5000K). These lights are designed for graphics art work and have a high CRI rating, so color rendition would not be an issue.

Now by Fluorescent lights, you mean the compact fluorescent bulbs that are popular now, that is a little different story. The popular CFLs, for video use, are the full spectrum, high CRI 5500K rated bulbs. I am building a guerilla lighting kit now, and am going to incorporate CFLs in that, along with tungsten fresnels, tungsten open faced units, modified tube Fluorescent units, and Par 64 1K cans. Throwing the CFLs into that is not really to try to use them in mixed lighting situations. I, personally plan on using high output CFLs mostly for guerilla night exterior lighting, or for complementary (fill lighting) with interior scenes lit by daylight.

Of course, I am not shy about using mixed lighting. As a guerilla guy, that is usually the order of the day. I am also a fan of using color to introduce, and accentuate depth in a frame. However, your lighting idea, using cooler lights for the scene focus and warmer lights, gelled of course, for the back ground light, is kind of the reverse of how I prefer to introduce depth by color. I usually prefer to go from warmer, in the foreground, scene focus, to cooler in the background. With the parameters of that you set up in the OP, with the cooler lights as the foreground and scene focus lights, and a warmer light as the background light, what I would do is white balance to a white card lit with one of the foreground CFL lights, with a 1/4 CTO gel on it, then put a half CTO gel on the foreground lights and put a half CTB gel on the tungsten light in the background. By doing this, the foreground, scene focus will be warmer, and the background should match the lighting of the scene focus, give or take a little bit. It should be close enough for guerilla work, but you can experiment with the gelling to see what you can get.
 
Last edited:
er... the maths is a bit flawed here. The bit about one stop =half, two stops = a quarter of the original light output is ok. The fault is simply that a 2000W Fresnel is NOT automatically twice as bright as a 1000W Fresnel at the same beam angle. An Arri 1K at 6m/30 degrees is 1075 Lux, a 2K at 6m/30 degrees is 1878 Lux, not 2150 Lux. Fair enough, we're not talking huge amounts, but Lee 201 is really 1.7 stops, and the practical effect of putting this on a 650 or 1K Fresnel still leaves it an effective light source.
 
gene_can_sing said:
. . . will the daylight gelled Fresnel still have the hard light characteristics of Tungsten? Or does it acquire soft light characteristics like a Fluorescent?
Click to expand...

Remember that soft lighting means shadows that are not distinct, not sharp, not "hard" in other words.

Soft lighting reaches the subject from a surface that transmits light, such as the front of a softbox, a Chinese lantern or open frame skinned with diffusion gel, or a surface that reflects light such as a beadboard, umbrella, a ceiling or wall, that is large compared to the subject and the light rays are diffused, scattered, rather than traveling in roughly parallel.

With soft lighting an object, such as the talent's nose, cannot cast a strong black shadow because the shadow from light from one part of the source receives light scattered into it from other parts of the source that the nose cannot shadow, making the intensity of the shadow less than otherwise.

In the case of faces, we like these soft, indistinct shadows for certain moods or subjects because they are flattering, meaning they hide wrinkles, pits, bumps and other skin defects. And for their emotional softness as well.

Soft light literally "wraps" around a face, meaning it can be placed to illuminate both sides of the face. Nonetheless, nearly always we should still provide enough shadow so that modeling or shape is given the face. (if you get too large a source too close to a face you can wipe out all shadows and hence wind up with a flat, two-dimensional image.

Emotionally, soft lighting is the opposite of harsh and dramatic and hard lighting, it is romantic, gentle, subtle and comfortable. So choose the quality that serves the scene.

In photography we paint with light, but the art is in where we brush it on, where we leave the shadows and how we choose to blur between the two.
 
Smith, I enjoyed your thoughtful post and really like your ideas on using color to add depth. I shamelessly steal that kind of material.
 
slondon said:
With soft lighting an object, such as the talent's nose, cannot cast a strong black shadow because the shadow from light from one part of the source receives light scattered into it from other parts of the source that the nose cannot shadow, making the intensity of the shadow less than otherwise.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the quality of light with contrast. They are two different things. It is very possible to use soft lighting and still have a high contrast image.
 
slondon said:
Smith, I enjoyed your thoughtful post and really like your ideas on using color to add depth. I shamelessly steal that kind of material.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I stole that also. I started by shooting on slow speed color reversal film stocks, and in most instances I had to use every light I could get my hands on just to get an exposure. I read some where, I think in Lenny Lipton's "Independent Filmmaker", where color was used to adjunct depth and modeling and adapted it to shooting reversal. Since I didn't have a light kit big enough to really get adequate modeling with the slow stocks, adding the color for depth and separation helped. Now, even with higher sensitivity cameras, it is still a useful technique. Not for very every style of film, but good to have in the bag o' tricks.
 
CB_Radio said:
Don't confuse the quality of light with contrast. They are two different things. It is very possible to use soft lighting and still have a high contrast image.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm confused, I think I understand this topic thoroughly, but if you think I'm confused please explain.

Remember, I'm addressing soft lighting of a face. Of course, there's no objective standard for what soft is or how rapidly a soft shadow transitions from light to dark. How many stops difference do you consider high contrast?
 
One note on fresnels with soft sources - I often use a 6", 650 fresnel for hair/shoulders, with a softer source/sources in front.

In that situation, try the fresnel with only 1/2 or 1/4 CTB - or even no correction. You'll get a warmer "sunset" sort of glow to hair, shoulders, edges of cheekbones, etc. which can look really pretty.

You may find that you have to dim or scrim the 650 in those setups - it can be very bright. I keep some scraps of window screen and metal gel frames for those situations. A dimmer can help as well, but they will warm the light even more once you really start cutting watts.
 
slondon said:
I don't think I'm confused, I think I understand this topic thoroughly, but if you think I'm confused please explain.

Remember, I'm addressing soft lighting of a face. Of course, there's no objective standard for what soft is or how rapidly a soft shadow transitions from light to dark. How many stops difference do you consider high contrast?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many stops I consider high contrast. whether it's 3, 5, 10 stops. Quality of light and contrast are two different things. Your post says with soft light the intensity of the shadow is less than otherwise, you are linking quality with contrast. A shadow can be just as dark using soft lighting as with hard lighting.
 
Last edited:
CB_Radio said:
It doesn't matter how many stops I consider high contrast. whether it's 3, 5, 10 stops. Quality of light and contrast are two different things. Your post says with soft light the intensity of the shadow is less than otherwise, you are linking quality with contrast. A shadow can be just as dark using soft lighting as with hard lighting.
Click to expand...

Quality of light is hardly whether it is hard or soft alone. Soft light means the transition from light to dark in a shadow takes place over a longer distance. Nose shadows are too short to transition to black unless the source is so far to the side that half the face is in darkness.

Among others I studied Harry Box.

I'm done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top