They will work just fine, and if they are too weak for your work, buy 320 ones and use the 160 ones for fill.
The only real issue you may experience, is overpowering the sun if you shoot outside in the middle of the day with these.
My first studiolights were 2 300ws. I used them with umbrellas and 60 x90cm softboxes. I primarly shot full body on models. 90% of the time I had them set on minimal output. I guess people here shot iso 25 and f/16.
Originally Posted by BuddhaBelly
200ws is good enough for starters. When you upgrade, get a stronger and the 200ws will be good for hairlights, fill, background etc.
Ps. It's worse to have 2000ws where you cannot go low enough and need ND filters.
Originally Posted by BuddhaBelly
they'll do just fine -
have fun !
More is not necessarily better
A common fallacy is the more the better. I've fallen into the trap many times. I have a set of Mole Richardson Mini Moles which are 200 watts. They're fresnel lights and they're my favorites. I shoot mainly tabletop and portraits and 200 watts is more than enough for me. On a recent assignment, I had to use some scrims to dim them over a stop to balance them with the ambient lighting. I don't know what you shoot nor what your approach is, but use your lights a bit and come to your conclusion through experience. If your lights permit, you might be able to up the wattage just by changing the bulb. But read the instructions first.
The first half of this is true, but you cannot increase a flash's power by changing the bulb. It's the quantity of capacitors built in that defines the energy storage.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
But certainly 2 of 200Ws is enough to get started, more than enough for 35mm and OK for many purposes with medium format. It's only LF where it would struggle.
I will disagree with MattKing and strongly advocate the use of a DSLR for metering, if you have one already. If you set it up correctly (absolutely no dynamic-range-adjusted modes, M exposure), it can give a very accurate indication of exposure, especially if you look carefully at the histogram. The greatest value though is in visualising how the light falls on your subject, which can be a bit difficult initially with flashes. A flash meter is also highly valuable but they're not cheap.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Here we go again. A DSLR for metering!?
Use a flashmeter with incident/trigger ops. The expense of a separate meter is part of an overall working studio set up.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
One beautiful image is worth
a thousand hours of therapy.
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
to save the environment."
I know this is heresy, but shooting with a digital camera to learn about lighting and ratios are useful despite being useless for metering film. I spent a lot of money on Polaroid learning about lighting. Still have more to learn though.
Sure, use an incident flashmeter, that works too. However, many people already have a DSLR but not a flashmeter; buying a flashmeter is expensive for a hobbyist. A DSLR works extremely well for metering, it's not rubbish and it gives perfect results if you do it properly. I have quite the collection of chromes to prove it.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
No one is forcing you do throw out your beloved flashmeter but just because a process is different from what you personally do doesn't make it wrong.
i use 1200ws to light a whole roomand could get away with 800ws,but 2x 200ws is getting tight. Don't forget that you can always add lights later and fire them through slaves. you don't need to buy sa full set rihht away.
I would really advice to use a flash-meter to measure the lights and to get the ratios correct. (the ratios are important to document, should you need to set everything up again and repeat that light).
- you also have control and consistency over what you are doing when you are using a light-meter to gauge your flash-outputs.
Using a DSLR is a very convenient way to determine and fine-tune your ratios and angles, this isn't "cheating" either, as most photographers during the years used polaroids to gauge exposure, ratios and angles of light, since polaroid is more or less extinct, I think it's only fair game to use a digicam in it's place.
When I do this, I still think "zone-like" though, because dslr's are more like slide-flim (expose for the highlights, not the shadows), so after setting everything up, you need to start thinking how you will develop your film and how you will end up printing, to decide where you will place your (BW) exposures.