Has anyone used Nanlite for photography?

[Downhill Specialist]

I have seen some YouTube videos as well as some good photographers using these as opposed to flash, particularly for film photography. I know flash and I know how to use it and it's advantages over continuous, however with the development of the tech, some of the more powerful Nanlite with a big octa (which I already have) seem very useful for shooting portraits, particularly on film (medium to large format).

Has anyone actually used them and has any opinions? I mean, they are very expensive which is putting me off a little.

 

[CharleyL]

Nanlite is a brand name. They offer many products. Which of their products are you asking about? Expensive, yes, but very high quality from my view, but why I don't own any.

Charley

 

[Downhill Specialist]

Nanlite is a brand name. They offer many products. Which of their products are you asking about? Expensive, yes, but very high quality from my view, but why I don't own any.

Charley

Thanks. Apologies, I should have been clearer. Something like the Forza series of continuous lights I was thinking.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I'm not using them yet (or another brand for that matter) but there are clear benefits and not only for video work. One of the key advantages is the ability to set any RGB values precisely and control them on the fly doing away with the gels. Long LED tubes seem to be very useful in studio. They are also handy when you have to do both stills and video on the same set for a client saving changeover.

I would suggest having a very fast lens that is sharp wide open and camera with good high iso capability, or pretty much anything above average....

 

[Downhill Specialist]

I would suggest having a very fast lens that is sharp wide open and camera with good high iso capability, or pretty much anything above average....

There would be no video needs. As per my opening post, I am looking at medium or large format. With the latter, f/5.6 would be as fast as I would be getting with say, 8x10 (that's also as fast as I have on 4x5). Of course with medium format I have as fast as f/2.4 to play with. ISO would be defined by the film choice. They pose a distinct advantage that you can see how your subject is lit before releasing the shutter, especially now the days of peel apart Polaroids are over. I could test flash exposure on digital first, of course.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

There would be no video needs. As per my opening post, I am looking at medium or large format. With the latter, f/5.6 would be as fast as I would be getting with say, 8x10 (that's also as fast as I have on 4x5). Of course with medium format I have as fast as f/2.4 to play with. ISO would be defined by the film choice. They pose a distinct advantage that you can see how your subject is lit before releasing the shutter, especially now the days of peel apart Polaroids are over. I could test flash exposure on digital first, of course.

Your decision to use ancient mediums is obviously up to you, but bare in mind these LEDs aren't anywhere near as powerful and strobes and unless you buy the super expensive most powerful versions you may find yourself at say below f/2.8 at ISO 800.... hardly one for film!

 

[Downhill Specialist]

Your decision to use ancient mediums is obviously up to you, but bare in mind these LEDs aren't anywhere near as powerful and strobes and unless you buy the super expensive most powerful versions you may find yourself at say below f/2.8 at ISO 800.... hardly one for film!

That's why I was wondering if anyone here had experience. I see a few photographers I follow online using them and seem to have some success.

As for the ancient medium, well it's still very much current but of course that's not one for here.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

That's why I was wondering if anyone here had experience. I see a few photographers I follow online using them and seem to have some success.

As for the ancient medium, well it's still very much current but of course that's not one for here.

To me this just wouldn't be an issue either way so I would just get on with whatever settings that give me at least 1/200 - 1/250s. I have plenty of options to get down to or below f/2 and even if I had to use ISO 1600 it would still clean up with good exposure. It all depends on W, distance, modifiers (if any), etc.

 

[Downhill Specialist]

To me this just wouldn't be an issue either way so I would just get on with whatever settings that give me at least 1/200 - 1/250s. I have plenty of options to get down to or below f/2 and even if I had to use ISO 1600 it would still clean up with good exposure. It all depends on W, distance, modifiers (if any), etc.

I have digital options that afford me that luxury too, I was just curious about the ease of using continuous especially with film. It still produces results that I prefer to using digital equipment, particularly in the larger formats.

 

[Phil V]

I have digital options that afford me that luxury too, I was just curious about the ease of using continuous especially with film. It still produces results that I prefer to using digital equipment, particularly in the larger formats.

This is really wishful thinking.
The reason for the recent growth of continuous lighting is because with digital, we can get away with high ISO’s so even dim light is enough to get an exposure.

Ready the ISO to decent film speeds, and you need an awful lot of power to get a decent shutter speed / aperture combination.

Back in film days, it took very powerful continuous lights to get a photo, that’s why flash became the dominant tech.

 

[Downhill Specialist]

This is really wishful thinking.
The reason for the recent growth of continuous lighting is because with digital, we can get away with high ISO’s so even dim light is enough to get an exposure.

Ready the ISO to decent film speeds, and you need an awful lot of power to get a decent shutter speed / aperture combination.

Back in film days, it took very powerful continuous lights to get a photo, that’s why flash became the dominant tech.

Totally understand that. Hence the question. Seeing people do things on social media, YouTube etc is fine but was curious to see if anyone had some real world use.

I'm happy to use flash and even with film options, I have faster apertures (2.8 with medium format and 1.4 with 35mm) but it was more for LF I was curious. For that application I am leaning to agree that flash would be better as I only have f/5.6.

 

[Phil V]

Totally understand that. Hence the question. Seeing people do things on social media, YouTube etc is fine but was curious to see if anyone had some real world use.

I'm happy to use flash and even with film options, I have faster apertures (2.8 with medium format and 1.4 with 35mm) but it was more for LF I was curious. For that application I am leaning to agree that flash would be better as I only have f/5.6.

Yeah - it's not just that you have only f5.6, but that you also need the smaller apertures for larger formats.

So I have no real world experience, but a bit of maths coupled with some photography history leads me to believe it's not a worthwhile option.

Flash for portability is awesome - though I'm guessing for LF I'd want nothing smaller than an AD200 (but they are awesome and versatile)

 

[Downhill Specialist]

Yeah - it's not just that you have only f5.6, but that you also need the smaller apertures for larger formats.

So I have no real world experience, but a bit of maths coupled with some photography history leads me to believe it's not a worthwhile option.

Flash for portability is awesome - though I'm guessing for LF I'd want nothing smaller than an AD200 (but they are awesome and versatile)

Yeah exactly, although I DO like shooting wide open and have done studio work previously at f/2 on the GFX 110. I do like a very fast, soft falloff.

I currently have the AD400 pro which is more than enough for my digital work with one light. I think shooting film (medium and large format) it would have been nice to see the light before taking the photo. Been watching some work by Craig Fleming who uses the nanlites for this.

 

[cuthbert]

I've got a few of their LED panel video lights, very good, lightweight, easy to pack/store/transport, can take a beating too. I tend to use them key lights in video work as they need to be plugged in (the ones I have do, anyway) and they can't overpower the sun or even overpower bright ambient without completely blinding the model.

 

[Downhill Specialist]

I've got a few of their LED panel video lights, very good, lightweight, easy to pack/store/transport, can take a beating too. I tend to use them key lights in video work as they need to be plugged in (the ones I have do, anyway) and they can't overpower the sun or even overpower bright ambient without completely blinding the model.

Thanks for the input!
The ones I am considering is one of the big COB lights with my (Bowens fit) Elinchrom Rotalux deep Octa.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yeah - it's not just that you have only f5.6, but that you also need the smaller apertures for larger formats.

So I have no real world experience, but a bit of maths coupled with some photography history leads me to believe it's not a worthwhile option.

Flash for portability is awesome - though I'm guessing for LF I'd want nothing smaller than an AD200 (but they are awesome and versatile)

I don't know whether this helps or not, but back in the day when I was using LF routinely, an AD200, good as it may be, wouldn't have been usable.
With 4x5", the working (shooting) aperture was normally f/45, and with 10x8" it was f/64. The max aperture may have been f/5.6 or thereabouts but this was just for focussing, not for shooting, both image quality and DOF requirements mandated the use of small apertures. The difference in power output needs between f/5.6 and f/45 is massive.

Back then, I managed with 6x2400J generator flash units, 1x6000J and 1 x 5000J, plus other, smaller ones that just weren't powerful enough for f/45 at 100 iso. On that basis, and in theory, a 480-watt LED light should be able to produce the same exposure as a 2400J flash, with an exposure time of ONE SECOND. But that assumes that the figures claimed by the manufacturer are true, and totally disregards the loss of lighting power that results from the energy that is output in the form of heat rather than light, which will make a difference, although I don't know how to quantify that difference. Back in the days of non-LED lighting the rule of thumb was that 2/3rds of the lighting energy would be output as heat, reducing the actual, usable light output to just 1/3rd, or if you prefer the 1-second exposure would become 3 seconds. LED lights are much better, but the heat loss will still matter.

This is really wishful thinking.
The reason for the recent growth of continuous lighting is because with digital, we can get away with high ISO’s so even dim light is enough to get an exposure.

Ready the ISO to decent film speeds, and you need an awful lot of power to get a decent shutter speed / aperture combination.

Back in film days, it took very powerful continuous lights to get a photo, that’s why flash became the dominant tech.

I agree, but I think there's more to it than that (my bold). The flash market is now totally dominated by Godox products, other manufacturers simply can't sell their flash products so they market their LED lights (which have a much lower and cheaper entry barrier) as being perfect for still photography, and part of that marketing often includes deceptive sales videos on YouTube, which defy logic, common sense and the laws of physics. The sad thing, IMO, isn't that they make false claims, it's that a lot of people actually believe those claims.

Don't misunderstand me, I love LED lighting - for video

 

[Downhill Specialist]

I don't know whether this helps or not, but back in the day when I was using LF routinely, an AD200, good as it may be, wouldn't have been usable.
With 4x5", the working (shooting) aperture was normally f/45, and with 10x8" it was f/64. The max aperture may have been f/5.6 or thereabouts but this was just for focussing, not for shooting, both image quality and DOF requirements mandated the use of small apertures. The difference in power output needs between f/5.6 and f/45 is massive.

Back then, I managed with 6x2400J generator flash units, 1x6000J and 1 x 5000J, plus other, smaller ones that just weren't powerful enough for f/45 at 100 iso. On that basis, and in theory, a 480-watt LED light should be able to produce the same exposure as a 2400J flash, with an exposure time of ONE SECOND. But that assumes that the figures claimed by the manufacturer are true, and totally disregards the loss of lighting power that results from the energy that is output in the form of heat rather than light, which will make a difference, although I don't know how to quantify that difference. Back in the days of non-LED lighting the rule of thumb was that 2/3rds of the lighting energy would be output as heat, reducing the actual, usable light output to just 1/3rd, or if you prefer the 1-second exposure would become 3 seconds. LED lights are much better, but the heat loss will still matter.


I agree, but I think there's more to it than that (my bold). The flash market is now totally dominated by Godox products, other manufacturers simply can't sell their flash products so they market their LED lights (which have a much lower and cheaper entry barrier) as being perfect for still photography, and part of that marketing often includes deceptive sales videos on YouTube, which defy logic, common sense and the laws of physics. The sad thing, IMO, isn't that they make false claims, it's that a lot of people actually believe those claims.

Don't misunderstand me, I love LED lighting - for video

All good points, however I would never shoot at such tiny apertures. Even on 8x10 I'm happy with f/5.6 or f/8. I'm still not sure even my AD400 is enough as I've never tried it at those apertures, always at around f/2 when it's plenty.

I'll have to test it with a light meter to see what power I need for those apertures. My working distance is quite close as I usually prefer a softer light so I'm not losing much of the power due to distance.

 

[Garry Edwards]

My points are good in relation to my LF work, which was all commercial photography to the required standard - clients simply wouldn't accept the results produced by lenses used at large apertures, LF lenses have always produced very poor results compared to modern SF lenses, simply because large apertures were never wanted or needed.

But I did wonder, when I was writing my reply, whether it was relevant to your needs, which are very different, and it's now obvious that you don't need anywhere near the amount of lighting power that had to be used in pro studios if you're going to shoot at f/5.6 with close, soft lighting - but whether or not continuous lighting will work for you is another question - please let us know if you do go down that route.

 

[Downhill Specialist]

My points are good in relation to my LF work, which was all commercial photography to the required standard - clients simply wouldn't accept the results produced by lenses used at large apertures, LF lenses have always produced very poor results compared to modern SF lenses, simply because large apertures were never wanted or needed.

But I did wonder, when I was writing my reply, whether it was relevant to your needs, which are very different, and it's now obvious that you don't need anywhere near the amount of lighting power that had to be used in pro studios if you're going to shoot at f/5.6 with close, soft lighting - but whether or not continuous lighting will work for you is another question - please let us know if you do go down that route.

Thanks, Garry.

Yes you're absolutely right. I totally get that commercial use was different to artistic intent I may have by shooting wider.

I'll give it some more investigation and will report back.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

with an exposure time of ONE SECOND

This may be just the thing particularly if you want the authentic film experience and feel

 

[learningtofly]

Nanlite are superb, high quality lights for sure. In fact, I almost bought a few Forza 300ii's a couple of weeks back as they were 50% off, but sadly stock ran out as I was about to hit the buy button.

In terms of COB LEDs generally, they can be great for still life/product photography, and they can certainly be great for headshots (my interest). Obviously, though, a wider field of view and any kind of movement will inevitably favour flash.

 

[Downhill Specialist]

This may be just the thing particularly if you want the authentic film experience and feel

I've shot a lot of film. Mainly natural light, occasionally with a small LED panel and never needed one second for the film experience.

Nanlite are superb, high quality lights for sure. I fact, I almost bought a few Forza 300ii's a couple of weeks back as they were 50% off, but sadly stock ran out as I was about to hit the buy button.

In terms of COB LEDs generally, they can be great for still life/product photography, and they can certainly be great for headshots (my interest). Obviously, though, a wider field of view and any kind of movement will inevitably favour flash.

Thank you for the input.

It's mainly portraits that I'd be looking for and after speaking to someone regularly using them for that yesterday, his consensus was that they may to too bright in occasion for the person sitting. As in, they will be a bit blinding.

 

[learningtofly]

I've shot a lot of film. Mainly natural light, occasionally with a small LED panel and never needed one second for the film experience.



Thank you for the input.

It's mainly portraits that I'd be looking for and after speaking to someone regularly using them for that yesterday, his consensus was that they may to too bright in occasion for the person sitting. As in, they will be a bit blinding.

Yes, they can be. For me it's not a problem as they're close enough for headshots that they can be turned way down and properly feathered, and (in any event) I go for slightly "squinted" eyes most of the time. It's definitely something to be aware of, though.

 

[juggler]

Yes, they can be. For me it's not a problem as they're close enough for headshots that they can be turned way down and properly feathered, and (in any event) I go for slightly "squinted" eyes most of the time. It's definitely something to be aware of, though.

How do you feather an LED panel?

AIUI feathering works in three ways:
1. Using the size of the light source to play with the fall off; the inverse square law means that the bulk of the source - usually a softbox - is further from the subject.
2. By pointing a light elsewhere than directly at the subject you get it bouncing around the set - so providing some consequential fill
3. Using the lip of a softbox with a recessed diffuser to control exactly where the light starts to fall off.

None of those are really possible with a small LED panel.

I'm pretty sure that cinematographers use feathering to mean something else but I've never managed to find chapter & verse on the subject.

 

[Downhill Specialist]

How do you feather an LED panel?

The lights he's referring to aren't LED panels but COB lights that can be used with any Bowens mount modifier, so soft box, etc.

This is why I was looking at them to use for portraits primarily when using film. I am leaning away from them a little now as flash would give me more versatility at a lower cost, however I haven't totally ruled it out yet.

 

[Phil V]

I've shot a lot of film. Mainly natural light, occasionally with a small LED panel and never needed one second for the film experience.



Thank you for the input.

It's mainly portraits that I'd be looking for and after speaking to someone regularly using them for that yesterday, his consensus was that they may to too bright in occasion for the person sitting. As in, they will be a bit blinding.

That’s the problem w continuous, by the time they’re bright enough for film, they’re not comfortable for the sitter.

 

[Downhill Specialist]

That’s the problem w continuous, by the time they’re bright enough for film, they’re not comfortable for the sitter.

That's exactly the kind of result I was hoping to get to, I think. Something definitive as to why they're a bad idea in this application. I think there could be still be a little use if you just want to add a little pop to the ambient on a wider shot and I have used an LED panel for such before. But it's not enough for me to make an investment just yet.

 

[juggler]

The lights he's referring to aren't LED panels but COB lights that can be used with any Bowens mount modifier, so soft box, etc.

This is why I was looking at them to use for portraits primarily when using film. I am leaning away from them a little now as flash would give me more versatility at a lower cost, however I haven't totally ruled it out yet.

ah, makes sense, thanks

 

[Garry Edwards]

That’s the problem w continuous, by the time they’re bright enough for film, they’re not comfortable for the sitter.

I didn't mention this becasue I didn't know that you wanted to photograph people, but it's one of the main problems with continuous lighting. I think that one of the reasons why I don't use continuous lighting is that, when I started out in photography, there was no viable flash alternative.

Back then of course, everyone used continuous lighting, and all of the outstanding glamour headshots of film stars used it, but the photographers used the massive, powerful film set lights, and their subjects were used to the heat and the dazzle, and could look natural, ordinary photographers didn't have that technology and ordinary subjects didn't have those skills.

This article may be of some interest, even though modern LED lighting is so much better than the horrible photoflood lamps that we had to use back in the day, the dazzle problem is unchanged.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/portraits-as-they-used-to-be.151/

It may be relevant because the shot was on LF (half plate)

 

[LongLensPhotography]

How do you feather an LED panel?

AIUI feathering works in three ways:
1. Using the size of the light source to play with the fall off; the inverse square law means that the bulk of the source - usually a softbox - is further from the subject.
2. By pointing a light elsewhere than directly at the subject you get it bouncing around the set - so providing some consequential fill
3. Using the lip of a softbox with a recessed diffuser to control exactly where the light starts to fall off.

None of those are really possible with a small LED panel.

I'm pretty sure that cinematographers use feathering to mean something else but I've never managed to find chapter & verse on the subject.

F200Bi/F400Bi/F600Bi-Product-GODOX Photo Equipment Co.,Ltd.

Lux datafor the Godox KNOWLED Flexible LED MatF200Bi/F400Bi/F600BiF200BiCCTUnit1m2m3m2700Klux66801910915fc620177853200Klux734021001000fc682195934300Klux807023001100fc7502141035600Klux830023701130fc7702201056500Klux816023401110fc7582171038500Klux770022101050fc71420698

www.godox.com

You would easily feather that. I wouldn't mind one, but quite hard to justify the cost! I'd really like a set of them considering the size and weight relative to large softbox + 600w light

 

[learningtofly]

F200Bi/F400Bi/F600Bi-Product-GODOX Photo Equipment Co.,Ltd.

Lux datafor the Godox KNOWLED Flexible LED MatF200Bi/F400Bi/F600BiF200BiCCTUnit1m2m3m2700Klux66801910915fc620177853200Klux734021001000fc682195934300Klux807023001100fc7502141035600Klux830023701130fc7702201056500Klux816023401110fc7582171038500Klux770022101050fc71420698

www.godox.com

You would easily feather that. I wouldn't mind one, but quite hard to justify the cost! I'd really like a set of them considering the size and weight relative to large softbox + 600w light

Yes, panels are easily feathered too, albeit that it helps of they have some kind of softbox (even if it's a shallow one). With grids, even more so.

 

[juggler]

F200Bi/F400Bi/F600Bi-Product-GODOX Photo Equipment Co.,Ltd.

Lux datafor the Godox KNOWLED Flexible LED MatF200Bi/F400Bi/F600BiF200BiCCTUnit1m2m3m2700Klux66801910915fc620177853200Klux734021001000fc682195934300Klux807023001100fc7502141035600Klux830023701130fc7702201056500Klux816023401110fc7582171038500Klux770022101050fc71420698

www.godox.com

You would easily feather that. I wouldn't mind one, but quite hard to justify the cost! I'd really like a set of them considering the size and weight relative to large softbox + 600w light

There are panels and there are panels

 

[learningtofly]

There are panels and there are panels

Yep! Shame they don't make a 2x1/3x1 (or perhaps, lucky they don't).

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Yep! Shame they don't make a 2x1/3x1 (or perhaps, lucky they don't).

They make long tubes, arguably even more useful

 

[sk66]

AIUI feathering works in three ways:
1. Using the size of the light source to play with the fall off; the inverse square law means that the bulk of the source - usually a softbox - is further from the subject.
2. By pointing a light elsewhere than directly at the subject you get it bouncing around the set - so providing some consequential fill
3. Using the lip of a softbox with a recessed diffuser to control exactly where the light starts to fall off.

My understanding of feathering is only # 3; using the gradient that occurs at the "feathered edge" of the light spread (the term coming from painting). IMO, more directional light sources (non-diffused LED's) or collimated light sources (grids/reflectors/etc) are much less suited to feathering.
Size/distance (1) adjusts the falloff rate, and bounce (2) is creating a larger/more diffuse light source... of course, any change is likely to affect more than one factor.

 

[learningtofly]

They make long tubes, arguably even more useful

Just not for my use case, unfortunately.