Continous LED lighting in aquarium

Ady N

Ady N

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,815
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
Yes
Following on from a recent thread I started re photographing a wedding in 'The Deep' in Hull I have spoken to a tog that has done 2 weddings there and he said you need to use video/LED lighting to get any sort of result (as well as fast primes & FF). Having never used said lighting I am after any tips such as positioning/reflection reduction from aquarium wall/etc.

A quick Google brought this up (link below) but again, any tips on equipment would be good. Can't see me getting much use out of them so don't want to spend a lot of money on them (maybe I can hire???).

Any imput appreciated.

http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/11915616/art/polaroid/studio-series-112-led-vid.html
 
That statement is totally illogical, the laws of physics dictate that all lights will behave in much the same way, there is no advantage in using LED or any other type of continuous lights.

But I suppose I can see where he is coming from - if he doesn't understand how to control reflections then he might assume that continuous lights, that allow him to actually see the reflections, are better than flash, or necessary.

All that you need to know is that the angle of reflectance equals the angle of incidence. In other words, you need to angle the combination of light and camera lens so that the reflection travels away from the lens and can't be seen by it. Even the smallest, weakest hotshoe flash will give you far more power than an LED light, avoiding problems caused by subject movement, camera shake, high ISO and wide-open lenses, so it's really a no-brainer.
 
forgot to add that flash is banned in this venue hence my mention of continuous lighting.
 
160 LED lamps like these are popular for video & cheap at under £30 http://www.amazon.co.uk/CN-160-Came...6JH6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350564351&sr=8-1

These are nicer as they have barn doors & are just that little bit better made but still under £40 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Yongnuo-D40...OGZS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1350564351&sr=8-4

However these ones (LED-5010A) at just over £50 are my current favourites. They have just six powerful LEDs & are much brighter & throw the light better. The barn doors & CTO gel are a joke as they fall off as soon as you look at them but the lights are great. They come with a battery & charger although the charger has a very crummy US plug with an adaptor to a Continental plug so it's better to buy some decent batteries (Sony camcorder battery - F550 or F750 or F960 or F970) http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/130672060...X:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649#ht_2220wt_1145 I did find the same lamp on Amazon at £55 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Video-Light...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1347901963&sr=1-1

Here is a picture I took a few weeks ago of a wedding group shot being set up in the pitch dark. This is lit by just two LED-5010A lamps held aloft (admittedly shot on a Canon 5D3 at ISO12800). They do pack a lot of light for the price.
alice_barker_images_wedding_video_norfolk_vicky_neil_group_photograph.jpg
 
Thanls for the above, any more input welcome. I would like to be able to put the lights on a light stand - not sure if they will fit without some sort of adaptor or copious amount of gaffer tape.........................
 
Ady N said:
Thanls for the above, any more input welcome. I would like to be able to put the lights on a light stand - not sure if they will fit without some sort of adaptor or copious amount of gaffer tape.........................
Click to expand...

O gaffer tape quite frankly the photographers first aid kit
 
Garry Edwards said:
there is no advantage in using LED or any other type of continuous lights.
Click to expand...

Ady N said:
forgot to add that flash is banned in this venue hence my mention of continuous lighting.
Click to expand...

PMSL.

Never been to the Deep - though I went to the London Aquarium once and it was very very dark indeed.

But I've never been in a wedding/reception venue that was so dark that I needed extra light* because people would feel uncomfortable there. Do you have a link to his work so we can see the issues?



----
*I've been in plenty where I've chosen to use supplementary light because the lights weren't in the right place for me or for effect but if it's too dark to take pictures it's too dark to socialise.
 
the wedding tog I spoke to was Chris Bailey based in cottingham who has done a couple of jobs at the deep. there are a couple of pics in his online gallery. from what I can gather the led light is needed to make the b&g pop from the blue green backdrop. he said he was at 1600 iso wide open with 4 lights.
 
Yeah he's moving light.

LEDs would do it. So would a Lowell or Arri.

The advantage of LEDs (and here I disagree with Garry - as commercially available, LEDs differ from other continuous lights) is their extremely rapid fall off. This will leave less stray light to chicane off all the "polished" glass.

I'll bet somebody clever could light that with a couple of LED Lensers. Or Mr Lovegrove will happily sell you some Lupos.

-------------
Disclaimer: I've a funny feeling I'm involved with a firm that sell LED lights. But since I'm not absolutely sure I can't see how that has affected my advice. I certainly don't get any backhanders from Lowell, Arri, LED Lenser, Lupo or Lovegrove Consulting and Fine Photographers' Light Emporium. Or the Deep. IIRC a mate paid my entry to the Aquarium in exchange for half a pizza.
 
JonathanRyan said:
The advantage of LEDs (and here I disagree with Garry - as commercially available, LEDs differ from other continuous lights) is their extremely rapid fall off. This will leave less stray light to chicane off all the "polished" glass.
Click to expand...
:lol:No they don't. They follow exactly the same immutable laws of physics as everything else.

What this is really about though is the stupid rules banning flash from some venues. I'm guessing that the reasons, now lost in time, were originally about the possibility of fire risk from hot flashbulbs being ejected from flashguns, or maybe even further back, to the risk of injury from shattered flashbulbs in the days before they were coated with plastic to hold them together - or maybe even further back, when flash involved a mixture of gunpowder and magnesium:)

But short of being able to persuade jobsworths to allow the use of flash, I suppose we're stuck with using available light, which is probably a better option, most of the time, than continuous light.
 
flash is banned as fish and sharks do not have eyelids so flash agitated them a lot I believe. Gary - why would you say ambient would be preffered over continuous. with extra light I would be able to lower my iso and make the couple stand out more would I not. any lighting equipment tips appreciated from you Gary
 
Last edited:
I don't know anything about fish, but electronic flash has such incredibly short flash durations that I very much doubt whether they would even notice it, let alone be affected by it - again, this belief may go back to the days of flashbulbs, which burned for a very long time..

There's nothing wrong with continuous light as such, it's just that it seems to be very bright and distracting but actually produces very little power. If it had enough power to bounce off of the ceiling in the same way that flash can be bounced then fine, it would then produce natural-looking light, just more of it - but it doesn't have enough power to do that and so it is typically used on camera, and then produces a very similar result to on-camera flash, which isn't pretty.

If you're able to use it off camera, fairly high up, pointing downwards and fitted with a large umbrella, then the results may be more or less OK
 
Garry Edwards said:
If you're able to use it off camera, fairly high up, pointing downwards and fitted with a large umbrella, then the results may be more or less OK
Click to expand...

off camera is my intention. I can try through an umbrella but tog I spoke to did not diffuse. cheers.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
:lol:No they don't. They follow exactly the same immutable laws of physics as everything else.
Click to expand...

Um, yeah. Until you limit yourself to those available in the real world. The only ones I've seen for sale have such highly angular emitters that the edge fall off is extreme.

Re the fish and flash....charging capacitors could seriously upset the sharks. Ampullae of Lorenzini and all that.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Um, yeah. Until you limit yourself to those available in the real world. The only ones I've seen for sale have such highly angular emitters that the edge fall off is extreme.
Click to expand...
Jonathan,
If by 'fall off' you mean that some of the LED lamps have meniscus lenses covering them to
1. Increase the apparent power by throwing the light a long way
2. Make them nearly invisible (very common on the LED's used on high end CCTV cameras)

then yes, they do - but that isn't fall off. It's basically the same principle in reverse as a concave parabolic mirror, used to focus the sun's rays and produce a very controlled light. They have also been built into some non LED torch bulbs for years now.

The real reason behind this design is probably not to help you when taking photos in an aquarium, it's probably because LED lights are actually made for different purposes, not for photography, and the people making them don't know what matters to photographers. From memory, one of the ancient Greeks was said to have used concave parabolic reflectors as a weapon to destroy an invading fleet, so as a Greek scholar you'll probably know that:)
 
Nope. I mean the fall off at the edge of the beam. You get a sudden transition from very bright to very dark rather than the more common feather.

Yes, this is caused by the design of the housing.

No, I realise that's not purpose designed for aquarium photography.

You're probably thinking of Archimedes, who as you should remember wasn't technically Greek. By coincidence I was near his house last week. Nobody really knows what he used but it's likely it was flat reflectors in an array to create a parabolic reflector. Parabolic disks were pretty hard to make at the time with any degree of accuracy. The only real accounts of his device would be like a modern scholar trying to guess what Galileo was on about without written texts.

Funny how you always forget I have an engineering degree just because I also know useful stuff about dead people.
 
We generally use these either handheld (not so easy when you have three of them:-) or on a cheap £10 lighting stand.
 
nigelbb said:
We generally use these either handheld (not so easy when you have three of them:-) or on a cheap £10 lighting stand.
Click to expand...

They screw onto a tripod & look like they will fit on a light stand so will set them up on stands and see what works. Quite good for the price I think.
 
Just posted a few pics from the wedding (people & portraits section) using lighting suggested in this thread. Thanks for the input - would have been a dead duck without them!
 
well if you need extra light, are the couple not dressing the venue in lovely little fairy type lights to make the place look 'magical'?
 
DizMatt said:
well if you need extra light, are the couple not dressing the venue in lovely little fairy type lights to make the place look 'magical'?
Click to expand...

A few random fairy lights don't emit sufficient light to actually make any difference - there were candles in lanterns down the makeshift aisle though, think they saved the day!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top