Quartz halogen lighting v tungsten

[Paramount bokeh]

Guys
Could you advise me on quartz halogen lights please. Are they similar colour temperatures to tungsten continuous 'hot' lights?

Would say a 2k Mole give a similar light intensity/beam quality to a 2k blonde or are they totally different?

For portrait work, would you expect to get equivalent levels from the above?

As always, thanks in advance for your time and answers.

[Jeff Keller]

http://lowel.com/edu/color_temperatu...mystified.html

For portrait work you probably want to balance the light temperature fairly closely. For interior architecture people often expect a slight warm color so the light temperature may not be balanced out completely.

Reflectors and even bulb shape affect the intensity pattern ... narrower beam probably more intensity.

[Drew Wiley]

You can get different color temperature bulbs, such as 3200K or 3400K, or for black and white film simply buy cheaper construction light bulbs, which sometimes are very close anyway. Of course you have to use the correct shape and voltage of
bulb, and they do run hot, so keep your light balancing gels and diffusers at a safe distance. I sometimes use a combination
of Lowell Tota-lites and Omni-lites, with maybe a focussing Arri Fresnel on the side. This system is nice for arch interior
shots too, that is, if you are working the slow ole time way with a view camera. I'd have a color temp meter and various
lighting gels or warming/cooling filters on hand. Sometimes a particular diffusion material will add the necessary pinch of
warmth. Since tungsten-balanced films are getting scarce, you will probably need blue gels as well.

[Leigh]

Quartz halogen lights are tungsten.
As such, they have the same spectral curve, although halogens have a higher color temperature.

A color temperature meter and regular gels work fine for correcting the light.
Just be sure the gels will handle the operating temperature (not color temperature) of the halogens.

Halogen lamps MUST operate with a bulb temperature over 250°C.

- Leigh

[vinny]

I've never seen/ heard of enough difference to mention it. I've used every hot light worth mentioning. In the film industry, a tungsten lamp is a tungsten lamp is a quartz lamp. Sure, with slide film you may see the difference between a brand new globe (3200) and a used one (2900ish) but you aren't shooting tungsten transparencies, are you?

[Paramount bokeh]

Thanks for the replies all, good advice.

My primary use is portraiture in mostly black and white. I am a fan of the 1930s/40s glamour era and am trying to create as near to that look as possible. Using Moles/Bardwells as the pro's of the day did would of course make sense, however, I am becoming increasing fed-up of the hiked up prices asked of units that are 60+ years old (prices driven up by 'trendy' antique dealers) and frankly, past their best (in most cases). Searching the internet it appears quartz-halo's are more realistic pricewise and the bulbs in particular are more wallet-friendly. A new red-head is a fraction of the price being asked for a solar spot.

I have read much about old movie lighting but not read much wordage about quartz's and didn't want to make the investment only to find they aren't particularly suitable for purpose. Obviously, some of those old pro's (as with modern ones) could have made a beautiful picture with a torch and an old pan – but I am not in that league and need as much help as possible!

[Bruce Watson]

My primary use is portraiture in mostly black and white. I am a fan of the 1930s/40s glamour era and am trying to create as near to that look as possible.

If you're going for that Hurrell glamor look, there are books out there on how he did it.

Back in the 1930s, much of the movie lighting was carbon arc. They had slow emulsions and needed a bunch of light, and they had old thick film B&W emulsions that had interesting response curves and weren't too concerned with the color of the light. One of the characteristics of carbon arcs is the amount of UV they produce. They could literally give the talent a sun burn, and burn retinas. I suspect that they had much more in common with a modern HMI than they do with modern tungsten lights.

I don't think you can get near what Hurrell was using with modern tungsten lighting. But I'm not sure you need to either. For B&W, what you need is lumens. I'm not sure one can distinguish between tungsten and HMI in a B&W portrait made on modern film. But you're welcome to try, and if you do please report back what you find.

What Hurrell was truly good at, was placing his lights, and therefore placing his shadows on his subjects' faces. That, I think, is the real art. And he was really good at it. A master of the hard light. And he was also a master of fill, especially with female faces.

I'm just sayin' it's not the lighting instruments, it's how you use them that's important.

[Drew Wiley]

My sister has a huge Hurrell print, and one of his former assistants lives in this area and has quite a collection of old Hollywood negs and large format Kodachromes. The movie lighting of that era is pretty fascinating and drew some
serious talent in its own right. Tungsten halogen is still a very affordable and elegant way to do a setup if you are working
with film. Just be careful of anything flammable. And it's a good idea to have an assistant as a surrogate sitter when the
bulk of the lighting arrangement is being done, so that your actual client is all sweaty by the time you click the shutter!

[Paramount bokeh]

Hi Bruce
Thanks for the info – I do have several books on the subject and most are a little hazy about the actual lighting – alluding only to Klieg eye etc from the Kliegls (which of course is exactly as you say as a result of the carbon arcs) and fresnels etc etc. I have various pictures of GH at work in movie studio's showing giant lights in the background, however, most seem to be props and not actually in use for the shot. The shots I have seen of his actual lighting seem to be show some kind of Bardwell keg on the boom, scoops, and what look like 2k Moles or 5k Moles etc. Whether they were ever used, or tried then discarded, I guess we'll never know.

I do agree with you 100% that it is how you use them, not the actual kit that is critical. Absolutely.

I had considered HMI but am a little concerned about the a) the cost, b) the exploding aspect(!) and c) the hassle and expense of ballast.

Could you explain for me please why you don't think modern tungsten could get near what Hurrell was using? Is it a question of output? ie, is a 2k blonde somehow inferior to a 2k Mole, for example?

Thanks guys

[Bruce Watson]

Could you explain for me please why you don't think modern tungsten could get near what Hurrell was using? Is it a question of output? ie, is a 2k blonde somehow inferior to a 2k Mole, for example?

Just that carbon arc puts out a lot of blue (around 5600K) and extends out into the UV IIRC, where tungsten is blue starved (cinema lights around 3200K, household tungsten around 2700K), an orange-heavy light in comparison to a carbon arc. Tungsten and carbon arc are just different lighting technologies that give different results.

The term "blonde" is typically a size description, and a fairly loose one, that typically refers to a 2k watt tungsten equivalent light. The term "Mole" is a manufacturer's name, more formally Mole-Richardson. One of the oldest names in cinema lighting. Mole-Richardson is also one of the great innovators in cinema lighting.