Why are used Mole Richardsons cheaper than Arris? Looking for a 2 or 3 light-kit!

M

moodlover

Member
Hi, I am trying to shoot cinematic portraits for photography and in the market for a 2 or 3 light kit. The style im going for is chiaroscuro, Dan Winters, etc. Basically an isolated small pocket of light on the face or body, not light everywhere, but just a very controlled strip or pocket of light where I want it (do I need to invest in flags?):

hhLi9ts.jpg

I have looked at Arri's 3 light kits (3x 650w) and the price of $2000usd is just way out of range for me right now. I need a strong key, a slightly weaker light for fill, and a weak light for hair. I shoot on Portra 400 or Tri-X so my ISO would be 400 for the most part, and wide apertures of f/2.8 to f/5.6 to let you know how much power I need (I have no idea how many watts would be needed for 400 iso).

I read on cinematography.com that Mole's are much cheaper and last extremely long, but cant understand why they are cheaper on eBay for example. Should I pick up a couple of Moles? I own 2 flash strobes but could never in my years of shooting make flash look great on skin, its just too harsh/specular/hot even with large diffusion
 
In a way, it doesn't matter which you buy, they are both industry standard tools, although they are rapidly fading as tungsten is replaced by LEDs for video people. I own both Arris and Moles and have used them for 30 years. In my experience with smaller instruments, Arris tend to have more actual output. When I use the Moles I more often feel as if I am running out of horsepower in a comprable sized instrument. You should be buying used, there are lots of good deals for that you want to do. For your needs, I would consider two 650 fresnels and a 300 watt fresnel. If you are using them sans softbox for your style as show above, either the Arris or Moles would work. I see many more used Arris on the market than Moles. Moles are typically bought more by rental houses for use on trucks, Arris by single users. Keep an eye out in the Marketplace here, Ebay, Creative Cow. Used hot lights are around.
 
Yea, you can't go wrong with either Moles or Arris. I used to own Arri lights and they're great, lightweight fixtures but now I only own used Moles. The older ones might need to be rewired but that's not hard to do yourself. They're a little larger and a little heavier, but they're basically indestructible unless you smash it with a sledgehammer (And even then only only causality would be the lens). :laugh:

And yes, I would recommend getting at least a few 18x24 solids. You'll need them to be far away from the light and close to the talent to produce a sharp cut.
 
An old girlfriend used to work for Dan, & he primarily used studio Strobes (& 4x5 film). Was in his studio numerous times, & don't remember any fresnels lamps, or adapters.

Not tying to dissuade you from picking up some fresnels, & actually encourage you to do so, just pointing out there's more than one way to achieve the look.

On a side note...Dan is one of best photographers, & all around great guy. He's a photographer's photographer.
 
Bern Caughey said:
An old girlfriend used to work for Dan, & he primarily used studio Strobes (& 4x5 film). Was in his studio numerous times, & don't remember any fresnels lamps, or adapters.

Not tying to dissuade you from picking up some fresnels, & actually encourage you to do so, just pointing out there's more than one way to achieve the look.

On a side note...Dan is one of best photographers, & all around great guy. He's a photographer's photographer.
Click to expand...
Youre right, I have seen behind-the-scenes videos of Dan shooting with strobes only. I just dont understand how he gets his lights to look so soft and painterly, maybe thats the 4x5's rendering of light, not sure. Ideally id love to keep my strobes and make it happen with just strobes, but you are encouraging me to get fresnels, why is that?
 
Have you considered Leko lights?

ETC Source 4 is the light you want, although it also comes in a "jr" version. Here's an old thread, which doesn't show hard cuts you're after but gives more information.

Regarding shaping, and exposure aside, these lights would easily give you the effect you're after on the faces, except for the bottom right Heath portrait. Heath's background could be made with this light too though!

This is an example from ebay. You need to pick an appropriate barrel, which gives you different beam angles. Don't quote me on this but they range from 10-90 degrees. There are also zooms e.g. 25-50 degrees, which are handy.

If 650w/300w used prices are similar (just going from new prices being similar) then you might as well get a 650w, which can be used with a 300w globe as well.
 
moodlover said:
Youre right, I have seen behind-the-scenes videos of Dan shooting with strobes only. I just dont understand how he gets his lights to look so soft and painterly, maybe thats the 4x5's rendering of light, not sure. Ideally id love to keep my strobes and make it happen with just strobes, but you are encouraging me to get fresnels, why is that?
Click to expand...

After reading what your quest is, I would recommend you not buy any video lights. You need to invest time into your photography and grow your skills, not buy video lights. Not sure of your lighting skill level but as far as stills lighting, you really owe it to yourself to go through Strobist 101-103, www.strobist.com it is a free on-line stills lighting education program, David Hobby is a VERY talented photographer, one of the most talented I have seen in decades because he kind of invented a better way of lighting for stills. As a cinematographer and stills photographer, I personally don't like using hot lights for stills, the output levels, unless you are using large instruments with high output, mean you compromise your exposure, end up using too slow shutter speed and don't have the DOF control you get from strobes/flashes.

The reason photographers use hot lights for stills work is because, frankly, it is easier and simpler to light with sophistication and subtlety for stills with hot lights, than with strobes/flashes, until you know what you are doing, then you will wonder why you were ever messing with hot lights for stills. With hot lights, you can see with your own eyes, as you light, what you are creating, as gaffers and cinematographers do. With strobes/flashes, with modeling lights you kind of/sort of get a weak preview of what the image will look like but until you start snapping and open the images on a quality monitor, you barely even know what you captured. But hot lights are so much more hassle to light for stills with, especially on location. I have a garage full of studio strobes collecting dust because since I went through Strobist, I like to light stills with cheap, old flashes or cheap new Chinese ones like the Yongnuos and cheap Pocket Wizards. So easy and convenient, I like to shoot environmental and outdoor portraits so I am not hauling hot lights and a generator out to a meadow or down to a creek to light portraits. But I digress. Any lighting controls you see for hot lights are easily available for strobes and flashes, barndoors, flags, scrims, cucloris, umbrellas, softboxes, grids, etc. usually at a much cheaper price than lighting controls for video. To get the looks Dan gets has much more to do with skill and knowledge than the kind of lights he uses. It's not difficult to make strobes look soft and painterly. Large apparent sources equal softer light. When you say painterly, that typically means Rembrandt lighting which emulates window lighting, probably the easiest type of lighting there is to emulate for someone new to lighting. You most definitely do NOT need video lights to get this at all.

There is nothing wrong with using hot lights for stills but it sounds as if what you need are skills and knowledge, not new lights. Chances are you already own or could buy very cheaply the tools you need to create soft, painterly light sources. Another great site is Neil Van Niekerk's site, I have hired him for a few shoots back east that I couldn't do and he is really skilled and once again, he is all about lighting control, not buying video lights to take stills, even though he has done that as you'll see if you read his blog. http://neilvn.com/tangents/category/flash-photography. People with lighting challenges usually come to boards like this, convinced that if they just had "thing X" or "thing Y", it would solve all of their issues when in reality, all they really need is more knowledge so they can practice more and get better. My advice would be to do some reading, go through the entire Strobist program, read Neil's blog, get out there and shoot like crazy before spending hundreds, if not thousands on video lights to shoot stills. The basic Strobist kit will cost you less than an Arri 650 and includes two sources, light modifiers, stands, accessories and is small, light and extremely portable, by yourself.
 
Last edited:
rob norton said:
Have you considered Leko lights?

ETC Source 4 is the light you want, although it also comes in a "jr" version. Here's an old thread, which doesn't show hard cuts you're after but gives more information.

Regarding shaping, and exposure aside, these lights would easily give you the effect you're after on the faces, except for the bottom right Heath portrait. Heath's background could be made with this light too though!

This is an example from ebay. You need to pick an appropriate barrel, which gives you different beam angles. Don't quote me on this but they range from 10-90 degrees. There are also zooms e.g. 25-50 degrees, which are handy.

If 650w/300w used prices are similar (just going from new prices being similar) then you might as well get a 650w, which can be used with a 300w globe as well.
Click to expand...
Ive seen those lights but they are huge...Im just one guy who would have to carry all my camera and lighting eq from my house to the location (which changes every shoot) so taking all this on the train may not be convenient. Now that I think about it, Moles might be a horrible idea for portability too...
 
Lighting for photography, there are thousands of books on the subject out there.

Why are there thousands of books? Because it is a complicated subject. But, in the end, it is your eye that makes the lighting work, not the equipment.

Sure sometimes you need a particular set up to achieve your vision. For portraiture 4 lights some reflectors and gobos usually do the job. It takes awhile to figure out exactly how light works, until then it is nice to have hot lights or modeling lights in your strobes, but after awhile you get to where you know what is going to happen when you set up like this or like that and easily can work with raw strobes.

With 50+ years of experience I can tell you the first thing you are doing wrong is using 400 speed film. Most times 100 speed is correct and sometimes you need to get down to 25. Makes using digital hard, seems like everyone is looking for no light photography and video. Those old time Hollywood portraitists used huge keg lights* and really low speed film, like ASA 10. That was basically the same setup old b&w movies were done with.

The way I originally learned photographic lighting way back in the 1950's was by looking at photos in ads and such and trying to figure out how it was lit. How many lights, what angles, what intensity to each other, what modifiers, etc. That was somewhat easier back then because there were not so many different choices as these days, but it still is the cheapest way to get a lighting education.

Unfortunately, photography is a bit like playing the piano, someone can teach you to pick out a simple tune in 10 minutes or so, but it takes 10 years to actually learn to play, and 20 to become great. No one wants to hear that. "Oh, if I had a camera like yours, I could take photos like that." On the other hand, I sometimes got, "I don;t like having my picture taken, they fiddle with their camera for 15 minutes and the photo is nowhere as nice as yours. You just lifted the camera to your eye and was done in a second." The answer to the first statement is "Yah, sure". To the second statement is "Fifty years of experience".

*A keg light, for those who do not know, is a big 5K+ fresnel light. Two stories on the keg thing are: 1. They were about the size and shape of a keg of beer. 2. A corruption of Klieg Light, a carbon arc fresnel light.
 
Oh, and the answer to the actual question.

Moles are industrial quality studio lights, big heavy almost indestructible.

Arris are pro quality location lights. Not so big, nor heavy, nor indestructible, but easier to haul around.

The Chinese lights compare to the Arris as the Arris compare to the Mole-Richarsons, but can be had for $500 a set instead of $2000.
 
moodlover said:
Ive seen those lights but they are huge...Im just one guy who would have to carry all my camera and lighting eq from my house to the location (which changes every shoot) so taking all this on the train may not be convenient. Now that I think about it, Moles might be a horrible idea for portability too...
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I suggest the Strobist method and package, you can easily carry everything you need in a relatively small and light backpack. I'm in the same boat, I shoot environmental portraiture and usually need my subjects depicted in the environment they work in, want to be in or imagine themselves in. It's rarely inside their living room.
 
Maybe my way of thinking is skewed slightly, because where I live and my generation, it was pretty much your birth-right to get your drivers license at 16 and almost everyone had or had access to a vehicle. I live in a more rural/suburban area where everyone has a vehicle(at least one if not more) and people that work in this business usually drive trucks, SUV's, mini-vans or full size fans to carry our gear around to shoots. It's hard for me to wrap my head around someone trying to schlep gear on a train, subway, whatever from where they live to a shoot location with everything they need or trying to limit what they take to a job based on what they can carry on a train or subway. Are your rates/margins so slim that the job wouldn't cover a rental vehicle, or at the least, a taxi or uber to get you and your equipment to the location instead of having to rely on public transportation?
 
Run&Gun said:
Maybe my way of thinking is skewed slightly, because where I live and my generation, it was pretty much your birth-right to get your drivers license at 16 and almost everyone had or had access to a vehicle. I live in a more rural/suburban area where everyone has a vehicle(at least one if not more) and people that work in this business usually drive trucks, SUV's, mini-vans or full size fans to carry our gear around to shoots. It's hard for me to wrap my head around someone trying to schlep gear on a train, subway, whatever from where they live to a shoot location with everything they need or trying to limit what they take to a job based on what they can carry on a train or subway. Are your rates/margins so slim that the job wouldn't cover a rental vehicle, or at the least, a taxi or uber to get you and your equipment to the location instead of having to rely on public transportation?
Click to expand...
You seriously insinuating everyone can afford a car or upkeep for a car? Hah! I live in NYC, my rent costs more than some used cars already. A train ride is $2.75. An uber/taxi from where I live to a studio is $27.50. You do the math! Schlepping gear on the subway is how some of us have to do it, it's part of the hustle here. This is for personal learning, I can't afford that taxi cost every time, it adds up. So if I can carry 2 cameras in my backpack and a few lights by hand then I'm set!
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
After reading what your quest is, I would recommend you not buy any video lights. You need to invest time into your photography and grow your skills, not buy video lights. Not sure of your lighting skill level but as far as stills lighting, you really owe it to yourself to go through Strobist 101-103, www.strobist.com it is a free on-line stills lighting education program, David Hobby is a VERY talented photographer, one of the most talented I have seen in decades because he kind of invented a better way of lighting for stills. As a cinematographer and stills photographer, I personally don't like using hot lights for stills, the output levels, unless you are using large instruments with high output, mean you compromise your exposure, end up using too slow shutter speed and don't have the DOF control you get from strobes/flashes.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely, always down to improve my knowledge and not rely on one set of tools. Ill read up on the links you sent, thanks!

I have 2 alienbees b400 lights Im trying to work with so I might just spend more time learning these and get some barn doors / flags for cutting the light.
 
Last edited:
I'm sitting here thinking... why on earth are shooting on film with video light? For the fun of it?

Not a single soul will notice that you put that much effort into it if you don't deliberately tell them........

As seen from a still photography point of view, this seems like an excessive amount of effort put into achieving something you can easily achieve with compact flashes like Bowens or similar. Most of the time when I see people do this, it's either students trying stuff out, happy amateurs or photographers who got bored with the game past age 60 and want to experiment.

Not trying to put you down, just trying to understand. Besides, the lights will be hot fast making the subject sweat and you will up your electrical bill fast.
 
moodlover said:
1) You seriously insinuating everyone can afford a car or upkeep for a car?
2) Hah! I live in NYC, my rent costs more than some used cars already.
3)A train ride is $2.75. An uber/taxi from where I live to a studio is $27.50. You do the math! Schlepping gear on the subway is how some of us have to do it, it's part of the hustle here. This is for personal learning, I can't afford that taxi cost every time, it adds up. So if I can carry 2 cameras in my backpack and a few lights by hand then I'm set!
Click to expand...

1) Yes. I do not live in NYC. EVERYONE I know that does this professionally has a vehicle and honestly, I can not think of anyone I really know(working adult) that does not have a vehicle, period.

2) I laugh constantly when I see real estate costs in major areas like NYC, CA, LA, etc. Y'all pay more in rent for literal closets than a lot of people here pay for multi-thousand square foot houses, with yards and driveways/garages/carports to park their cars in(instead of parking blocks away in spaces/garages that cost as much as a house). I AM NOT trying to make fun of you or be an @$$hole in anyway. I'm just speaking to the ludicrous real estate "values" in some parts of this country and the stupid things, like parking or lack thereof, in big cities. I used to have to go to CA at least once a year to shoot and I wanted to just bang my head against the steering wheel dealing with the traffic. 24/7... It SUCKED. It drives me crazy enough when I get delayed by traffic for even 10 minutes, I couldn't imagine making a two+ hour drive everyday just to go 10-20 miles...

3) Enough said. If this is a "student/learning/personal" thing and not a paying job, no further explanation needed. Good luck with your endeavors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top