Pixel P50 LED lights

I recently purchased 3- Pixel P50 LED lights. Here's a link to the set on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/3000K-5800K-B...gateway&sr=8-1

They are rated at: CRI>96, TLCI>97. I just did some measurements of two of the lights with an Illuminati color meter. "Set CT" = the color temperature set on the light. "M. CT" = the measured color temperature.

Light Distance Set CT M. CT Lux EI/F-stop/Shutter

P1 1 meter 5800 5150 858 100/1.8/125th
P2 1 meter 5800 5150 865 100/1.8/125th

P1 0.5 meter 5800 5260 3275 100/4/100th
P2 0.5 meter 5800 5300 3076 100/4/100th

P1 1 meter 5700 4870 891 100/1.8/125th
P2 1 meter 5700 4920 877 100/1.8/125th

P1 0.5 meter 5700 4990 3364 100/4/100th
P2 0.5 meter 5700 5040 3152 100/4/100th

P1 1 meter 3000 2850 688 100/1.6/125th
P2 1 meter 3000 2870 733 100/1.6/125th

P1 0.5 meter 3000 2910 2590 100/3.6/100th
P2 0.5 meter 3000 2900 2651 100/3.6/100th

I plan on using them for a print viewing station to judge prints, a light source for a digital camera scanning system, for small product photography as well as some head shots, to adjust room light level when shooting portraits with flash to make the other lights easier on the subject's eyes, for general illumination in my office, and for whenever I need a bright, broad, and even light source.

These look great Peter.

What is the actual power consumption of each unit at the wall?

45 watts is actual max usage, or the lamp equivalent to a 45 watt standard tungsten?

Too bad i recycled my Sony Video camera batteries long ago.

I don't have a killawatt, unfortunately.

One advantage over some others is that while the front isn't perfectly smooth, the leds are much smaller than normal. For most uses, no xtra power-robbing diffusion would be needed. I'll take a picture of the front of the panel later today. Maybe I'll have time to do a head shot.

I use this 7 year old Belkin, out of production. I like the remote screen and use it constantly.

Every new electricity using device is tested.

I also use with a variac to adjust my condenser enlarger heads.

https://www.ebay.com/p/Belkin-F7C005...hm=1000&chn=ps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

I don't have a killawatt, unfortunately.

One advantage over some others is that while the front isn't perfectly smooth, the leds are much smaller than normal. For most uses, no xtra power-robbing diffusion would be needed. I'll take a picture of the front of the panel later today. Maybe I'll have time to do a head shot.

---

I'll be interested in the output / exposures. When we moved our shop, the new shop is completely lit with way too many high-output led lights with high color accuracy in large mushroom reflectors. Turn them all on, and it's like daylight, inside--too much, and we rarely use them since we have nice north light through huge windows. I experimented using a couple as photo lights: the output compared with a 250W photoflood, and they cost about $20 each. They weren't bad for my use taking archive shots of violins, but there was no advantage over strobes, of course, and they're too small-source for my portraits, so I didn't try that. the idea was good, though.

Michael,

What bulb is used in the shop?

Can you link to it?

For digital head shots, there should be enough light. For large format, even with SF lenses @f/5.6, I'm not sure. The measurements above are simply incident readings. In a real portrait situation, I'd give at least 1 stop more exposure, and there would likely be 1/3 to 1/2 stop bellows correction. I don't know how slow a shutter speed can be gotten away with. My guess is that I wouldn't want to go bellow 1/30th of a second. So, TMY at 400 might get close enough. For f/16 portraits, though, there won't be enough light. That's ok. That's what flash is for. My problem is that my flash system often has too much light for smaller formats and fast lenses.

I have an 180mm f/3.2 lens for my Fuji 6x8 camera. That should work.

Here's a lighting look I like: https://media3.mensxp.com/media/cont...1453210885.jpg

That's why I like my Einsteins they go low and high.

We have not this, but I did test these and they are equivalent:
https://www.fullspectrumsolutions.co...nt=45463718606
The equivalence is only 65W, but with the reflector directing everything forward I found the situation more like 250W as far as exposure went (I tested them against 250W blue floods).

I think my shop room has something like 24 of them! When we do turn them on at dusk, we use a dimmer. I have a bunch in my photo studio, but unscrewed all but three, and that's plenty for reading, computer, etc. I have to turn them off for photos.

Thank you,

With my increasing Glaucoma I need all the light inside my house as possible. I use drops twice a day and see the eye doc every 4 months.

I carry a LED flashlight as the crappy lighting in stores, and any other indoor arena is really bad light. Fluorescent tubes are terrible.

Sunshine is good!

None of these kinds of lights are going to deliver rated color temp at the high daylight end because they fail to factor the warming effect of plastic diffusers. Nor are panels likely to match. So a color temp meter is essential to evaluate what is really happening. I just installed a pair of Savage rim LED lights on my copy station. Quite a luxury compared to my old hot lights, which not only heated up the room, but are way too bright for my own eye safety at this age. I have them both balanced to actual 4500K at equal actual output, which also differs a bit between lamps. Nice even diffusion which doesn't even need cross-polarization with most shiny prints, but does need a slight tweak from a Singh-Ray KN filter for ideal color reproduction (basically, a very high quality skylight filter, but a bit more salmon than magenta in color).

Well, these get over 5K, which is good enough for me.

Yeah, once you're close they can be tweaked by basic light-balancing filters on the camera, gels on the lights, or often via an internal setting with pro digital cameras. No big deal. But I believe in honesty in labeling too.