Any suggestions for an On-Camera light for the Canon 7D? Thank you.

I've got 4 of these

Sima SL-20LXI Dual Powered Video Light with SL20LXI - B&H Photo

I just got one of these. It's very bright when on full, can be dimmed to the level you require & is incredibly good value 126-LED Video Light for Camera DV Camcorder Lighting on eBay (end time 02-Sep-10 17:10:08 BST) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250683702966&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_4353wt_1149)

Do any of those cause banding/flickering in the video when dimmed? I know this was an issue with some type of LED light. There was a video comparing this one to the original LitePanels, and the LitePanels one didn't band/flicker.

YouTube - LED light test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4e41sUs27o)

I'm also looking for a good inexpensive light

Honestly I wouldn't do on camera lighting for any type of camera. It's flat pancake lighting and is potentially more obtrusive as you have the light source at guest eye level. My suggestion would be to invest in a good 3-point off-camera lighting system w/ dimmers.

Honestly I wouldn't do on camera lighting for any type of camera. It's flat pancake lighting and is potentially more obtrusive as you have the light source at guest eye level. My suggestion would be to invest in a good 3-point off-camera lighting system w/ dimmers.That's great for interviews but is it really feasible for wedding & event videography? I was assuming that given that question was asked in this forum that the OP is looking at lighting suitable for run & gun hand held shooting.

That's great for interviews but is it really feasible for wedding & event videography? I was assuming that given that question was asked in this forum that the OP is looking at lighting suitable for run & gun hand held shooting.

Thanks Nigel. Exactly. Actually, I haven't been using a light at all! Just available light but I do need an on-camera light for some situations where the uplighting is pink or blue. If the bride pays money to have the reception set in pink lights, the videographer can't come in with 3-point lighting.

That's great for interviews but is it really feasible for wedding & event videography? I was assuming that given that question was asked in this forum that the OP is looking at lighting suitable for run & gun hand held shooting.

Thanks Nigel. Exactly. Actually, I haven't been using a light at all! Just available light but I do need an on-camera light for some situations where the uplighting is pink or blue. If the bride pays money to have the reception set in pink lights, the videographer can't come in with 3-point lighting.

With all due respect you both are wrong. I've been using an off-camera 3-point set up a receptions at weddings for over 2 years now. I sort of chuckled when I read Nigel's response as I was literally reading it at one of my receptions over dinner (on my iPhone)- less than 50ft from the dance floor lit with.....none other than a 3-point off-camera setup.


Putting a light ON your camera is just about the worst place to put it. In fact you can put the light pretty much anywhere BUT "on" the camera and it will give you better light. The only thing beneficial about using an on-camera light is convenience....that's it. Otherwise it creates unflattering light and is more obtrusive to guests as it is glaring head-on at eye level.

A large majority of the receptions I shoot use colored lighting. This is even MORE of a reason to use your own- not to wash out the color that they are spilling on to the dance floor- but to bring back some of the skin tones. In order to do this you have to be mindful of your wattage. You do not need anything more than 100 watts per light. We use 250watt lights on dimmers and never, Never, NEVER run them at full blast.

The key is to not think about using light to achieve your exposure but to rather improve it. I still run at half shutter 1/24th and 12db (on DSLR 1/30 and 1600-3200 ISO). In other words, you shouldn't be using a wattage to allow you to gain a good exposure at 0db or 200ISO. Not only is that potentially obtrusive, with high wattage you'll get your subject exposed but cause the backgrounds to become under-exposed.

I don't mean to come off condescending in any way. I just wanted to express my point in more detail to explain that this method is indeed viable and, in my opinion, largely superior in both aesthetic results and visibility/obtrusiveness to the guests.

With all due respect you both are wrong. I've been using an off-camera 3-point set up a receptions at weddings for over 2 years now. I sort of chuckled when I read Nigel's response as I was literally reading it at one of my receptions over dinner (on my iPhone)- less than 50ft from the dance floor lit with.....none other than a 3-point off-camera setup.


Putting a light ON your camera is just about the worst place to put it. In fact you can put the light pretty much anywhere BUT "on" the camera and it will give you better light. The only thing beneficial about using an on-camera light is convenience....that's it. Otherwise it creates unflattering light and is more obtrusive to guests as it is glaring head-on at eye level.

A large majority of the receptions I shoot use colored lighting. This is even MORE of a reason to use your own- not to wash out the color that they are spilling on to the dance floor- but to bring back some of the skin tones. In order to do this you have to be mindful of your wattage. You do not need anything more than 100 watts per light. We use 250watt lights on dimmers and never, Never, NEVER run them at full blast.

The key is to not think about using light to achieve your exposure but to rather improve it. I still run at half shutter 1/24th and 12db (on DSLR 1/30 and 1600-3200 ISO). In other words, you shouldn't be using a wattage to allow you to gain a good exposure at 0db or 200ISO. Not only is that potentially obtrusive, with high wattage you'll get your subject exposed but cause the backgrounds to become under-exposed.

I don't mean to come off condescending in any way. I just wanted to express my point in more detail to explain that this method is indeed viable and, in my opinion, largely superior in both aesthetic results and visibility/obtrusiveness to the guests.

Glen, do you set this all up yourself? I'm a one man show. If you're not a one man show, back to my original question. lol

Glen, do you set this all up yourself? I'm a one man show. If you're not a one man show, back to my original question. lol

No I shoot with at least one other person. However even if I was solo I'd take the 20 minutes or so to set up lighting as I mentioned above during cocktail hour. At the very least you can mount the light you were going to put on your camera on a light stand a few feet away from your camera. That way it's off-axis from your subject and up high above people's line of sight.

No I shoot with at least one other person. However even if I was solo I'd take the 20 minutes or so to set up lighting as I mentioned above during cocktail hour. At the very least you can mount the light you were going to put on your camera on a light stand a few feet away from your camera. That way it's off-axis from your subject and up high above people's line of sight.

Not only has every event I've done been a one-man crew (and this is the trend now, people don't want to pay for two), but few if ANY allowed for stationary shots. Everyone moves within a large, sometimes cavernous hall. I never bother to set up my tripod (unless it's a special occasion like a floor show), there's simply no time, I just use my monopod for support and keep moving to follow the action. Three-point lightning would be left behind the action as the focus moves from one minute to the next - I don;t have twenty minutes for anything, let alone move lights, cables, sand bags, etc.

A camera-mounted light is essential.

I don't mean to come off condescending in any way. I just wanted to express my point in more detail to explain that this method is indeed viable and, in my opinion, largely superior in both aesthetic results and visibility/obtrusiveness to the guests.

In an ideal world the bride and groom (and event organizer) would have an appreciation for aesthetics and would understand that the images they see on their TV screens were produced using entire crews, two cameras, wired sound, light kits, lengthy post-processing, etc. But the vast majority of people still think the camera craps out a finished movie at the end of the night, complete with visual FX, so it's impossible to convince them that we need to upset their carefully-choreographed ceremony to accommodate lights and stands (let alone pay for someone to do this).

I hate the look of an on-camera light too, but in 99% of cases it's that or nothing. People expect the photographer to get by with a camera-mounted flash, it's no different for the videographer.

There seems to be two vastly different universes in event videography: the handful few who get multi-thousand dollar shoots with complete crews and great production values, and the rest of us grunts who have to compete with camcorder jockeys and have to cut corners to get the gig. Heck, some of my colleagues get more and more requests to simply hand over the raw footage, no editing - people are happy to watch it on their computer, uncut, if it means saving a few hundred bucks more.

I really dislike what this biz has become. Used to be there was room for creativity, now it's just technician work.

J.

I just got one of these. It's very bright when on full, can be dimmed to the level you require & is incredibly good value 126-LED Video Light for Camera DV Camcorder Lighting on eBay (end time 02-Sep-10 17:10:08 BST) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250683702966&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_4353wt_1149)

Merci Nigel, I've added this light to my watch list. Definitely a great addition.

No I shoot with at least one other person. However even if I was solo I'd take the 20 minutes or so to set up lighting as I mentioned above during cocktail hour. At the very least you can mount the light you were going to put on your camera on a light stand a few feet away from your camera. That way it's off-axis from your subject and up high above people's line of sight.

Where do you find the 20 minutes?

Where do you find the 20 minutes?

Cocktail hour is 60 minutes. Unless that was rhetorical.

I'm just trying to help out whether or not you agree with me. If you aren't utilizing wall outlet power I like the Frezzi Mini dimmer w/ Bescor Battery pack. I dont' like LED's because- for one they are very expensive, don't have the same throw a good quality tungsten light (certainly not for the same cost), and they often have color temps that don't match the existing tungsten used in reception halls.

You could get one of these and put it on a light stand a few feet from your camera to give you off axis lighting and a very quick setup, even shooting solo.

Best of luck with your decision.

If you aren't utilizing wall outlet power I like the Frezzi Mini dimmer w/ Bescor Battery pack. I dont' like LED's because- for one they are very expensive, don't have the same throw a good quality tungsten light (certainly not for the same cost), and they often have color temps that don't match the existing tungsten used in reception halls.

A very nice light, to be sure, but a bit pricey (even the mounting bracket is extra). If I were going to spend in excess of 400 $, I'd go with a battery-powered redhead knockoff.


J.

Cocktail hour is 60 minutes. Unless that was rhetorical.

I'm just trying to help out whether or not you agree with me. If you aren't utilizing wall outlet power I like the Frezzi Mini dimmer w/ Bescor Battery pack. I dont' like LED's because- for one they are very expensive, don't have the same throw a good quality tungsten light (certainly not for the same cost), and they often have color temps that don't match the existing tungsten used in reception halls.

You could get one of these and put it on a light stand a few feet from your camera to give you off axis lighting and a very quick setup, even shooting solo.

Best of luck with your decision.

Glen, I was half joking about the 20 minutes. But many times I really don't have 20 minutes because I'm with the bride and groom for their photo session during the cocktail hour. As for the Frezzi, I actually do have this setup! So I'm glad that you mentioned it. I agree with you about the LEDs.

I setup a 2-3 point lighting system on the podium that can be swung around to light the dance floor during reception setup. I just cut the photo session coverage short if I need to setup and they are running late.

Having pulled off a SDE with a 2 man crew during a mainland destination gig, it is totally possible to setup lighting during a reception being short or even "no staffed". If you make it a point to educate your couples on how important off camera lighting is, they will understand if you don't cover the whole entire photo session or cocktail hour (depending on when they schedule photo session). They have a photographer for the photosession anyway, get your shots that you need for the edit and be out ;).

The underlying issue is educating your couples as to what you need to produce a quality film. I've had the father of the bride at a wedding I shot in the mainland veto any decision made that went against the film looking and sounding good. He pretty much gave us full executive authority to how the event should be run. Why? Because he knows how important the final film (and photos) are to his daughter and that everything else that day will not matter 10 years from then. Of course we didn't abuse this and stuck on schedule but it was good to have someone be in your corner when previously "videographers" were the after thought. I have in my contracts that I need at least 30 minutes each to setup ceremony and reception areas for audio and lighting, an hour preferred. These expectations should be made clear at the pre-consultation stage.

A cool light LED256 light with a sony battery on a light stand takes less than 5 minutes to setup, even if you were to take your time doing so. If you're on an extremely tight budget for lighting, get 2-3 lowel prolights with some extension cords and a few diffusion papers and call it a day. That'll run you no more than $500 but the image quality jump will be significant.

Being a one man band shouldn't be the excuse of not having the time to setup your reception for lighting IF IT IS IMPORTANT to the bride and groom, it should be the reason that you're given extra time for setup. If they like the flat lighting look, by all means, please ignore what I've written. In the end, it matters if they're happy with the final product or not. Some couples aren't as discerning and as long as it's "lit" and not a grainy mess, they are happy.

Cheers.

I setup a 2-3 point lighting system on the podium that can be swung around to light the dance floor during reception setup. I just cut the photo session coverage short if I need to setup and they are running late.

Having pulled off a SDE with a 2 man crew during a mainland destination gig, it is totally possible to setup lighting during a reception being short or even "no staffed". If you make it a point to educate your couples on how important off camera lighting is, they will understand if you don't cover the whole entire photo session or cocktail hour (depending on when they schedule photo session). They have a photographer for the photosession anyway, get your shots that you need for the edit and be out ;).

The underlying issue is educating your couples as to what you need to produce a quality film. I've had the father of the bride at a wedding I shot in the mainland veto any decision made that went against the film looking and sounding good. He pretty much gave us full executive authority to how the event should be run. Why? Because he knows how important the final film (and photos) are to his daughter and that everything else that day will not matter 10 years from then. Of course we didn't abuse this and stuck on schedule but it was good to have someone be in your corner when previously "videographers" were the after thought. I have in my contracts that I need at least 30 minutes each to setup ceremony and reception areas for audio and lighting, an hour preferred. These expectations should be made clear at the pre-consultation stage.

A cool light LED256 light with a sony battery on a light stand takes less than 5 minutes to setup, even if you were to take your time doing so. If you're on an extremely tight budget for lighting, get 2-3 lowel prolights with some extension cords and a few diffusion papers and call it a day. That'll run you no more than $500 but the image quality jump will be significant.

Being a one man band shouldn't be the excuse of not having the time to setup your reception for lighting IF IT IS IMPORTANT to the bride and groom, it should be the reason that you're given extra time for setup. If they like the flat lighting look, by all means, please ignore what I've written. In the end, it matters if they're happy with the final product or not. Some couples aren't as discerning and as long as it's "lit" and not a grainy mess, they are happy.

Cheers.

What do you do in a really tight reception hall where there isn't any space? I work at one hall where, if the bride hires a band, there is absolutely no room for light stands. Aren't you worried about the guests (kids running around) tripping over the light stands?

I setup a 2-3 point lighting system on the podium that can be swung around to light the dance floor during reception setup. I just cut the photo session coverage short if I need to setup and they are running late.

Having pulled off a SDE with a 2 man crew during a mainland destination gig, it is totally possible to setup lighting during a reception being short or even "no staffed". If you make it a point to educate your couples on how important off camera lighting is, they will understand if you don't cover the whole entire photo session or cocktail hour (depending on when they schedule photo session). They have a photographer for the photosession anyway, get your shots that you need for the edit and be out ;).

The underlying issue is educating your couples as to what you need to produce a quality film. I've had the father of the bride at a wedding I shot in the mainland veto any decision made that went against the film looking and sounding good. He pretty much gave us full executive authority to how the event should be run. Why? Because he knows how important the final film (and photos) are to his daughter and that everything else that day will not matter 10 years from then. Of course we didn't abuse this and stuck on schedule but it was good to have someone be in your corner when previously "videographers" were the after thought. I have in my contracts that I need at least 30 minutes each to setup ceremony and reception areas for audio and lighting, an hour preferred. These expectations should be made clear at the pre-consultation stage.

A cool light LED256 light with a sony battery on a light stand takes less than 5 minutes to setup, even if you were to take your time doing so. If you're on an extremely tight budget for lighting, get 2-3 lowel prolights with some extension cords and a few diffusion papers and call it a day. That'll run you no more than $500 but the image quality jump will be significant.

Being a one man band shouldn't be the excuse of not having the time to setup your reception for lighting IF IT IS IMPORTANT to the bride and groom, it should be the reason that you're given extra time for setup. If they like the flat lighting look, by all means, please ignore what I've written. In the end, it matters if they're happy with the final product or not. Some couples aren't as discerning and as long as it's "lit" and not a grainy mess, they are happy.

Cheers.

Do you have a link for the light you use? Thank you.

What do you do in a really tight reception hall where there isn't any space? I work at one hall where, if the bride hires a band, there is absolutely no room for light stands. Aren't you worried about the guests (kids running around) tripping over the light stands?

Be smart about placement and stick them next to speaker stands :). Or bring some sand bags to place on the legs of the stands. The prolight and LED256 are very light, so you wouldn't need to have a whole lot of weight to hold the stand down compared to an Arri 650.

Again, regarding the bride hiring a band, it's all during pre-consultation that you let your couples know what you need to create an ideal image. If they make it to where you can't achieve that due to limitations with either venue or scheduling, then it's on them as they were advised already.

Coollights LED256 : Cool Lights LED Fixtures - Cool Lights USA (http://www.coollights.biz/fixture-series-fixtures-c-40_43.html?osCsid=b462b73ff83feba789e82b8630057ed3)

Pro light 250w : Lowel Pro-Light Focus Flood Light (120-230VAC/12-30VDC) P2-101 -

Hope this helps.

I don't even think we're talking the same language here. For one thing, I've never shot in a hall where lights like the CoolLights (with 6-foot effective range) would even make a dent. I work in places with capacities of 200 people or more. For another, I never stand still long enough to use a tripod when I work (just a monopod), so setting up lights is futile. Think trying to film five-year olds, but in taffeta. The only time they stay in one place long enough is when they eat. And thirdly, having worked in film long enough, I cringe at the thought of people (and kids!) running around stands supporting hot lights. Can you say "liability" and "fire hazard"?

And lastly, people need to realize that $2,500 wedding video contracts are becoming more and more rare. My rock-bottom package is $750, and that's what everyone takes. I did get one call once for a $1,500 package, but I'm pretty sure that was a crank call. Maybe it's my location, maybe it's because I need to do this for 20 years before booking the really big gigs, but none of the advice proffered so far seems to take this into account.

I don't even think we're talking the same language here. For one thing, I've never shot in a hall where lights like the CoolLights (with 6-foot effective range) would even make a dent. I work in places with capacities of 200 people or more. For another, I never stand still long enough to use a tripod when I work (just a monopod), so setting up lights is futile. Think trying to film five-year olds, but in taffeta. The only time they stay in one place long enough is when they eat. And thirdly, having worked in film long enough, I cringe at the thought of people (and kids!) running around stands supporting hot lights. Can you say "liability" and "fire hazard"?

And lastly, people need to realize that $2,500 wedding video contracts are becoming more and more rare. My rock-bottom package is $750, and that's what everyone takes. I did get one call once for a $1,500 package, but I'm pretty sure that was a crank call. Maybe it's my location, maybe it's because I need to do this for 20 years before booking the really big gigs, but none of the advice proffered so far seems to take this into account.

We aren't speaking the same language (aka market) here. You made it clear in your earlier post that you cater to lower end couples who don't really care to pay top dollar for a wedding video/film. If you want to stay in that market, please continue doing what you are doing and having the same approach to your marketing and films. If nothing changes, nothing changes. That is by no means a dig at you or your company, as i say that with complete respect, as I can appreciate the differences in every market. With that said, what you said doesn't apply in my market. As much as there is $500 beach weddings going on here, there is just as many $2500-$4500+ wedding collections to go around. The studios who get them are the ones with a unique looking product, branding, and customer service.

When I started my own studio, I've been shooting wedding "videography" for the past 3.5 years. I wanted to have a wedding cinematography approach for my films and have them be personalized rather than a wedding video factory feel. It's been about a year on my own and I've booked packages several times the cost of what you say is a rare package to book. That's not to brag but to state that you don't have to be in business for 20+ years to get paid what you are worth (or even what you THINK you are worth). I don't like to air out my books but I say this so that you can realize you don't have to be stuck getting paid nothing. You will have to invest a bit into a quality piece or two to attract the type of couples who will pay more but to me it's worth it. I'd rather have 1 $4,000 couple than 5 $750 couples. There's NOTHING wrong if somebody else wants the 5 couples, it's all preference and what market they want to operate in.

With that said, if you have so much room to spare in such large halls, get an Arri 650, put it far away from what you are trying to light with it far off in a corner with a SANDBAG, therefore there is no "liability" and "fire hazard", and be done with it. I'm lighting podiums and dance floors, I don't usually need to bust out my arri's on gigs, so YES LED256's & prolights do great in spot configuration. My weddings usually have 250-350 on the guest list so I know what you mean by having a large room. You don't need to light the whole room, just paint the right places with enough light so that the image doesn't come out a muddy mess. I also shoot with DSLRs so maybe whatever you're shooting with isn't as light sensitive.

Invest in the look of your product and your branding/marketing and it will pay off :). Cheers

You made it clear in your earlier post that you cater to lower end couples who don't really care to pay top dollar for a wedding video/film. If you want to stay in that market, please continue doing what you are doing and having the same approach to your marketing and films.

I *cater* to high-end clients. I have the glamour shots, the great portfolio, the equipment. But no one is *buying*. I get maybe 5-6 e-mails and calls a week. Everyone wants me to do it for less than $500. I say no a lot, so I don't work a lot. The market is saturated with camcorder jockeys, there's even a guy flooding the local ads with a $399 wedding special and from what I've seen the videos are competent.

That's what people just don't seem to understand when I tell them that the realtiy - not just *their reality* - has changed out there. For every $2,500 wedding you do, I'll show twenty guys who do $500 weddings - most because they have to put bread on the table and have no choice.

With that said, if you have so much room to spare in such large halls, get an Arri 650, put it far away from what you are trying to light with it far off in a corner with a SANDBAG, therefore there is no "liability" and "fire hazard", and be done with it.

"Sandbags" doesn't constitute a defence in a civil lawsuit. You only need two kids knocking a tripod over (yes, even with a sandbag) and starting a fire to ruin you - and I'm not even getting into physical injury.

I'm not setting any hot lights without someone to man them. That's just irresponsible. That's my *approach* to films.

J.

I *cater* to high-end clients. I have the glamour shots, the great portfolio, the equipment. But no one is *buying*. I get maybe 5-6 e-mails and calls a week. Everyone wants me to do it for less than $500. I say no a lot, so I don't work a lot. The market is saturated with camcorder jockeys, there's even a guy flooding the local ads with a $399 wedding special and from what I've seen the videos are competent.

That's what people just don't seem to understand when I tell them that the realtiy - not just *their reality* - has changed out there. For every $2,500 wedding you do, I'll show twenty guys who do $500 weddings - most because they have to put bread on the table and have no choice.



"Sandbags" doesn't constitute a defence in a civil lawsuit. You only need two kids knocking a tripod over (yes, even with a sandbag) and starting a fire to ruin you - and I'm not even getting into physical injury.

I'm not setting any hot lights without someone to man them. That's just irresponsible. That's my *approach* to films.

J.

If you're COMPETING with the guys who charge $399, then that's your market. Charge the same as them and provide the same type of quality and be done with it. Let me put it a bit more plainly, are studios like StillMotion and Cloud Nine Creative worried about the studios who charge $300? Why not? Because that is not their competition. If you're putting out great work but it's comparable to the $300 products, why should clients choose you over them? If your product is not unique enough or does not carry good value, you shouldn't be blaming the competition. Saturation isn't a bad thing either, it breeds stronger competition and advancement in the market place. You talk about the 20 guys vs 1 guy doing the higher paying job. What's stopping you from being that 1 guy? If you want to go more deeply into market research, please post your 3 competitors as well as your website, I'd be curious to take a look.

Now paying the bills is nothing to take lightly. If those quick jobs at $500 pay the bills, by all means no one should say anything to you about that as you need to do what you need to do to eat. However, if you're providing the same service at $500 that others charge $2,500 for, then that's a bad business decision if you plan to keep doing $500 jobs yet investing the same time as those higher end jobs do. You're putting too much man hours into the product OR giving the client high expectations. Matt Davis made a good point in one of his web seminars for wedding videographers, not many can say they have a unique selling point to justify to a client why they should choose them.

And don't take offense to what I said. Your post tone seems like you're somehow upset. I said put the lights FAR away from the area you are trying to light. Are you telling me that you're not proactive enough to put the lights in a safe place, away from traffic, and weighted down? I'm not going to argue with you on this point, it's always the same paranoia about lighting that people bring up without looking at the solutions. It's not too hard to ask the kids parents to have them corral their kids. After all, they don't want them to get hurt and run amok either. BTW, in no way did I say sandbags would constitute a legal defense. If you would actually put yourself in a compromising position and not watch your lights, that's your bad. If you want to get a better look with lighting and have it manned, spend the $10/hr and hire a college kid or intern to watch them during your shoots. That $50 you spend during a 5 hour reception is worth it, right?

If you mistake what I'm saying as arguing with you, then I'm sorry but you are just way too defensive. I'm offering up my own personal experience on these matters and giving suggestions. Not trying to convince you I'm right and your wrong.

Cheers.

If you mistake what I'm saying as arguing with you, then I'm sorry but you are just way too defensive. I'm offering up my own personal experience on these matters and giving suggestions. Not trying to convince you I'm right and your wrong.

No, it's not you. I just run out of breath trying to convince people of the worth of the work I do every day. Yesterday someone tried to hire me to shoot their performance an hour's drive away, using two cameramen and capturing live sound, but didn't see why it should cost them more than $300. The prevailing attitude from them is that I'm somehow trying to gouge them for work which is a breeze - I mean, YouTube is full of great music videos and those only cost beer and pizza to make, right?

Oh, and today I had to swallow my tongue not to lose a gig with a marketing firm that want me to do the job over because they keep asking for the "pop art" look but don't know that's what Warhol, Lichtenstein and Banksy are. It was a choice between getting the last word, or getting paid for a week's work.

So, yeah. If I come across as a little impatient it's because I need a rest from jumping so many hurdles.

J.

No, it's not you. I just run out of breath trying to convince people of the worth of the work I do every day. Yesterday someone tried to hire me to shoot their performance an hour's drive away, using two cameramen and capturing live sound, but didn't see why it should cost them more than $300. The prevailing attitude from them is that I'm somehow trying to gouge them for work which is a breeze - I mean, YouTube is full of great music videos and those only cost beer and pizza to make, right?

Oh, and today I had to swallow my tongue not to lose a gig with a marketing firm that want me to do the job over because they keep asking for the "pop art" look but don't know that's what Warhol, Lichtenstein and Banksy are. It was a choice between getting the last word, or getting paid for a week's work.

So, yeah. If I come across as a little impatient it's because I need a rest from jumping so many hurdles.

J.

I feel your pain bro. That's all of us at one point or another. Good luck with everything and if you ever want to ping me offline or via email, I'd be happy to help you with whatever I can.

Cheers

I have to agree with what Randy is saying.

Your options open up when you are able to charge an appropriate fee for your services. Raising the production level involves many aspects from improving the quality of your work, your creativity, your branding and your marketing. This is a bit off topic but if you are not attracting the clients you want, look at your branding and marketing.

I have to agree that on camera lighting the least favorable way of using light. We use the Arri 650 with barn doors in addition, we have available the Lowel Pro light kit.. We have used these for over 2 years and have never had a problem. I know time is an issue for you because of the fact it is just you and time is a factor. This goes back to working on a plan to get you paid a reasonable fee. If you need to hire someone to just focus on lighting then charge for it and hire an assistant. We do use on camera lighting, LED's but never use them on camera. On of us will assist the other and hold the light or bounce the light off of something to soften it up a bit.

You will find that photographers will love that you did this for 2 reasons. 1. It helps them focus and 2. It can add some dramatic effect to their photos.

We ALWAYS discuss lighting with our clients before the wedding. When we explain how it helps us and the photographer, they understand. We have never had a couple tell us no.

randy: would you know whether the cool light 256 brighter than the comer 1800?

Also, I agree 100% with randy that you need to have solid work to back up your goals (that is to cater high end customers) and that means to be open to new things and be prepared to change the way you work and all. A lot of the times I see people being too comfortable with the way they do things that they resist to change or accept new things.Time goes by, new technology comes in, gotta keep up :)

I have to agree that on camera lighting is a bad idea, when I am really pushed I use micro light on a light stand and just move it with me. Even run and gun you can grab a small light stand and go, just keep it a little higher and off center and its a much better lighting than on camera.

It also give you a little more room to work as people will usually try and stay out of the way of the light.

I found when doing things like cake cutting the on camera lighting was just not acceptable, the shadows were horrible.

I am not sure the last time I used on camera lighting unless it was just to fill in some shadows and even then usually opt for a second light stand, keeping the camera less bulky.

I use 2 50W off camera lights for my JVC200U, they are battery operated and turn on and off with a remote... I agree that going off camera is the better option. I've been a one man show until recently and with a very little amount of pre planning you can have your lights setup in an ideal location.
All this being said, Since we're talking about shooting with DSLR. I shot last nights wedding with an 85mm/1.2 and didn't even need to use the external lights. This was the first time with this setup and I was impressed.

Steve

I agree that going off camera is the better option. I've been a one man show until recently and with a very little amount of pre planning you can have your lights setup in an ideal location.

I did a North African wedding last month. About 200 people in a large church basement. Every once in a while, the bride and groom would get up and lead the entire assembly on an impromptu procession snaking through the hall and in between tables. Think the Hokey Pokey but with beating drums, the rattling of ceremonial swords and women hooting. The clear instruction was to precede the bride and groom on their procession and keep rolling while walking backwards.

I'd like to hear any realistic alternatives to a camera-mounted light in the setup described above.

J.

I did a North African wedding last month. About 200 people in a large church basement. Every once in a while, the bride and groom would get up and lead the entire assembly on an impromptu procession snaking through the hall and in between tables. Think the Hokey Pokey but with beating drums, the rattling of ceremonial swords and women hooting. The clear instruction was to precede the bride and groom on their procession and keep rolling while walking backwards.

I'd like to hear any realistic alternatives to a camera-mounted light in the setup described above.

J.

Come on J... Cant you see that we're trying to steal your thread to what is better, on camera or off camera.. :-) You made a great point and I would agree that in that one particular scenario on camera lighting would have an advantage... Good luck in the search!

Come on J... Cant you see that we're trying to steal your thread to what is better, on camera or off camera.. :-)

Not my thread. But I'm sure the original poster had legitimate reasons for asking about on-camera lightning. As I was attempting to illustrate.

J.

I did a North African wedding last month. About 200 people in a large church basement. Every once in a while, the bride and groom would get up and lead the entire assembly on an impromptu procession snaking through the hall and in between tables. Think the Hokey Pokey but with beating drums, the rattling of ceremonial swords and women hooting. The clear instruction was to precede the bride and groom on their procession and keep rolling while walking backwards.

I'd like to hear any realistic alternatives to a camera-mounted light in the setup described above.

J.

I'd use two lights from the corners to flood light the whole thing. Planning where I would be most of the time and place the lights accordingly i.e. not placing the lights directly behind me. Bouncing the lights of the roof is also an option with a 800w or something like that. There's always a way. On camera light is a big no no for me. It will only make the faces brighter but won't help me achieve a better image overall.

Hey guys, you're going to kill me for saying this, but the answer is actually pretty simple. Get your 3 point up and running where most of the action will take place, AND always have a light on your camera as a prepared backup. That way you're prepared for anything that happens, no matter where it happens. With a wedding, you don't have time to re-set lights if something happens outside your triangle of lights, so be prepared ahead of time.

I'd use two lights from the corners to flood light the whole thing.

It's a 40,000 sq^2 hall. And fill lighting isn't the problem, it's highlights and faces.

I just shot 2 weddings this past weekend and it was near impossible to set up light stands that wouldn't have been in the way of the guests. 330 guests and the room was packed. The hall had a many different color disco lights and the room looked like a night club. Once I turned on my light stand, every head in the room turned and looked at me!! The maitre D asked me to turn it off. I was sooo embarrased. Glad I had an on camera light in my bag.

I just shot 2 weddings this past weekend and it was near impossible to set up light stands that wouldn't have been in the way of the guests. 330 guests and the room was packed. The hall had a many different color disco lights and the room looked like a night club. Once I turned on my light stand, every head in the room turned and looked at me!! The maitre D asked me to turn it off. I was sooo embarrased. Glad I had an on camera light in my bag.

Reminds me of a new year's eve rave I covered last year. I could use the on-camera light only for interviews, the rest of the time it was extremely disruptive to the guests - I believe the term "buzz kill" was used several times. Tripod-mounted lights would probably have gotten me lynched in an ecstasy-fuelled frenzy. ;-)

BTW I use a diffuser with my on-camera light to cut harsh shadows.


J.

It's obvious that those who prefer on-camera lights aren't going to switch so there's no point in even trying to offer up solutions.

If you like your on camera light because off camera lighting is too obtrusive for you, carry on. I've found the exact opposite in my experience but again, everyone's market is different I suppose. Posing questions in which you propose an impossible situation to properly light isn't doing anybody any good, it's pretty much just baiting. How do I handle LARGE halls with talent who don't like to stay in one place? I TELL them that I'm lighting for a specific area and to stay in that general place if they'd like to look good in the film. 99% of the time, the talent cares about having a good film for their friend so they stay in that area. This is also discussed PRIOR to the day with the couple because I've been in those situations before and I share with them how we light so it's no surprise when they dim up at the start of the program. Again, lots of these situations can be averted and you may find capturing the WHOLE (insert event happening in little to no light here) may not even matter to the couple as they will understand and are happy with just portions. Client's are very understanding when you explain the situation and options. I've had a client opt to have me turn off my off camera lights because they felt it was ruining the "mood". I told them that if they are fine with how the film will look (either with on camera light or a bit muddy), then I have no problem doing so as they're the bosses. Communication with them helps tremendously.

I have a dimmer on my arri 650 and my LED256 cool lights have dimmers built in. Again, you're not supposed to "flood" the room with light but paint and craft it. I usually have my 650 at 60-75% strength while the LED256s are full blast as I'm trying to balance the lighting in the room. I shot a wedding on the beach where the dance floor was creatively lit, but still setup an LED256 to act as a key and also turned on a (gasp) on camera light for fill. Footage turned out great as I wasn't just blasting the dance floor with light. The small led helped fill the faces and the LED256 gave a nice hair/rim lighting.

If you prefer the reality TV look of on camera lighting, there is nothing wrong with that. Just please respect those who have a difference of opinion rather than trying to argue about why on camera lighting works the best and off camera isn't feasible in an event environment. It's a pointless argument as both ways have been done and both ways "work".

Santo - I'm sorry, I don't know the comparison between the two. The LED256's put out close or maybe a little more than the 250w Pro Lights if that helps bro.

Cheers

Posing questions in which you propose an impossible situation to properly light isn't doing anybody any good, it's pretty much just baiting.

Let me remind you the title of this thread. The "impossible situation" I and others offered were not "proposed", they were ACTUAL situations where we had no choice but to use on-camera lights. That was in response to the numerous (and, let's face it, patronizing) posts saying there was no excuse to use on-camera lights.

Again, let's keep the title of the thread in mind. It's one thing to SUGGEST alternatives, but quite another to dismiss the original question.

J.
.

I'm referring to the conga line example, NOT the original question.

No one is patronizing anyone, nothing is wrong with on camera lights if that's what YOU and YOUR COUPLES prefer. Let me remind you the reason why we're off topic. The issue of not using on camera lights came up when the mention from Glen that on camera lighting was not flattering which lead to the discussion of raising production value in order to gain higher paying clients or clients who were discerning enough in their choices for videographers/cinematographers to notice the difference between an on camera light and off camera light shoot then into how feasible it is for one man shows to do so.

The original question was asking for suggestions for on camera lights, the thread has technically spun off topic. To ask to keep to the original question is to dismiss all the posts that don't include suggestions on a brand of on camera light. This is a discussion forum. Discussion stems from discussion.

To answer the original question, I use a Z96 LED light with a minus green filter. I mentioned in my previous post that I have used an on camera light before and still do. According to Jacques, I'm patronizing myself, which is ridiculous. My opinion there is a time and place for on camera light, it's not the end all, be all solution. Your opinion is different? Great, nothing wrong with that. :)

Stop being so defensive (again). I'm bowing out of this thread as it's headed into arguing and I'd prefer to not participate in that. Cheers everyone.

I'm referring to the conga line example, NOT the original question.
No one is patronizing anyone, nothing is wrong with on camera lights if that's what YOU and YOUR COUPLES prefer.

The "conga line" was in support of the original question: that in some cases, there is no other choice than on-camera light. Asking 200+ guests to change a traditional dance so they can remain within a restricted triangle of light is ridiculous.

Calling this a "preference" is, indeed, patronizing. It shows that you haven't really been paying attention. Please re-read the previous posts. I, and others, have presented real-life (not hypothetical) situations.

The fact remains that in some cases, on-camera lighting is the only way to go. Why is this concept so offensive to some people?

J.

The "conga line" was in support of the original question: that in some cases, there is no other choice than on-camera light. Asking 200+ guests to change a traditional dance so they can remain within a restricted triangle of light is ridiculous.

Calling this a "preference" is, indeed, patronizing. It shows that you haven't really been paying attention. Please re-read the previous posts. I, and others, have presented real-life (not hypothetical) situations.

The fact remains that in some cases, on-camera lighting is the only way to go. Why is this concept so offensive to some people?

J.

I'm only going to mention this once and leave, promise promise :). I AGREE with you but you are too "defensive" trying to defend your point to see that. I mention that on camera lighting is a tool I use when applicable :

To answer the original question, I use a Z96 LED light with a minus green filter. I mentioned in my previous post that I have used an on camera light before and still do. According to Jacques, I'm patronizing myself, which is ridiculous. My opinion there is a time and place for on camera light, it's not the end all, be all solution. Your opinion is different? Great, nothing wrong with that. :)

You like to quote portions of answers rather than address the whole post as a whole. I've been paying attention to the entirety of the answers. Maybe if you would do the same you wouldn't feel the need to keep defending your point as by the sound of your posts, the only person offended here is you, Jacques.

To spell it out:

1) I use on camera light at times when it's needed so therefore I can't be patronizing you or anyone else about on camera lighting.

2) On camera lighting is not my first choice so therefore it is my preference to not use it first. If you deem that patronizing then that's on you and your defensive manner. It is not said in an offensive or condoning way anymore than saying I prefer to use liquid detergent over powdered detergent as my first choice.

3) Everyone here is trying to help each other. They are giving their precious time to chime in on a subject to HELP the community. Not make others look bad. If you put your guard down and realize that, it'll make things a lot less tense and the thread can move past this on camera vs off camera bickering and onto something more productive, like other solutions for on camera lighting ;). To be honest, the way you are pretty much attacking me in your replies makes me just want to forego contributing anymore and lurk. I'd be offended if not for the fact that I understand the interw3bz is not srs bisnizz. :)

That's it. Have a good night all.

soooo..can anyone recommend a good on camera light for a DSLR?

soooo..can anyone recommend a good on camera light for a DSLR?

To answer the original question, I use a Z96 LED light with a minus green filter.

HDV-Z96 96 LED Light Fr EOS 5D II 7D 550D Lighting bh48 - eBay (item 300482531727 end time Nov-17-10 02:04:03 PST) (http://cgi.ebay.com/HDV-Z96-96-LED-Light-Fr-EOS-5D-II-7D-550D-Lighting-bh48-/300482531727?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45f627918f)

i like the ring light solution on DSLR, it is very light on the lens, qui to setup, and generate no shadow.
i built them from "angel eyes" you can buy for very cheap on ebay.
they exist in several sizes and you can easily glue 2 or 3 together depending the amount of light needed.
for few dollars more you can add a little box for intensity control.
i used a UV filter (glass removed) to allow to screw the ring directly on my lens.
a 3$ plastic AA battery holder is enough to give you light for hours.
i will provide a picture asap.

i like the ring light solution on DSLR, it is very light on the lens, qui to setup, and generate no shadow.
i built them from "angel eyes" you can buy for very cheap on ebay.
they exist in several sizes and you can easily glue 2 or 3 together depending the amount of light needed.
for few dollars more you can add a little box for intensity control.
i used a UV filter (glass removed) to allow to screw the ring directly on my lens.
a 3$ plastic AA battery holder is enough to give you light for hours.
i will provide a picture asap.

Would love to see it :)

For the record, depending on the banquet facility I may use a light stand, i may use an on-camera light or I may just use available light. I find that each banquet hall is different when it comes to their lighting situation. I really hate using an on camera light, but sometimes I find that it is necessary. It was necessary this past weekend because the hall was colored like a disco with flashing colored lights. My on camera light brought out the whites without ruining the ambiance of the wedding. If I didn't use an on camera light, everyone would have appeared blue or pink. So I don't believe there is really one good answer when it comes to lighting. The video is important, but so is the ambiance of the event and we as professionals have to respect that.