OT: Turn On Your Ego

Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/6/2006, 3:36 PM

I came across these lights quite by accident recently. They produce a very nice, soft light using two of the "cool" fluorescent bulbs (5500 degree Kelvin). They're great for talking heads and product shots. The Lowel Ego light.

The aren't "cheap" but they are inexpensive, relatively speaking (far less expensive than other "cool" lights). B&H carries them for $99.95 each or you can buy a "kit" of two Egos, two stands, two brackets for $289.95.

Check 'em out!

Comments

farss wrote on 6/6/2006, 3:42 PM
Yes, they are very handy. Mind you I think one could throw something together yourself for a little less, still at that price it's hardly worth it.

Bob.
corug7 wrote on 6/6/2006, 8:29 PM
Looks like it just uses daylight balanced fluorescent bulbs. I did a weekend shoot with similar bulbs purchased from a home repair store a few weeks back, and they worked great with a $10 chinese lantern and a couple of polished aluminum clamp-on deflectors. I don't know if I could bring myself to pay $100.00 for a bulb enclosure, even if it is quite fashonable looking.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/7/2006, 4:30 AM

It's more than just "a bulb enclosure." It's a lighting instrument. And like any instrument, each one has its own characteristics. The light produced by a Chinese lantern will be considerably different than the Ego.

The bottom line is whatever works for you.

rmack350 wrote on 6/7/2006, 12:28 PM
Hi Jay,

Do you have a set? How quick are they to set up? How about compactness for travel?

I've had many instances where these would have been handy - setups in tight spaces around kitchen counters, in bars, in cars, looking into boxes and cabinets.

It's not an all-around workhorse like a 650 fresnel, but if they folded up small it'd be good to have a handful in a small van package.

I'm assuming the ballasts are built into the lamps? How do they behave when you're monkeying around with a camera's shutter rate?

Rob Mack
Logan5 wrote on 6/7/2006, 1:04 PM
Looked at them at NAB - I give them two weak golf claps.

Farss is right, build your own if you like the idea.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/7/2006, 1:46 PM

Rob, actually, they just arrived day before yesterday. I've not had all that much time to play with them. They set up very quickly, but they don't appear to me to be the kind of light you'd set up and brake down, per se (maybe you could, I haven't really given it much thought). I'm storing/carrying each unit in a 18" x 18" canvas tote bag ($9.00).

Yes, I like their compact nature, too! You can use them on a light stand or set them on a table, counter, desk, etc. Very nifty!

Totally different animal from a fresnel, to be sure! Beautiful, soft, creamy daylight. I'm sure you could break them down, and once they are, they lie flat.

Yes, bulbs look like those low wattage lights you can buy at Home Depot. But they are daylight balanced for 5500 degrees Kelvin, so they can be used with natural light coming through windows, for example (I tried that).

No problems that I saw when changing shutter speed, and I did look at that specificially. Looked fine.

Logan, what Bob said was, "... one could throw something together yourself... still at that price it's hardly worth it." And that's just the way I see it for me. I'm a video producer, not a lighting manufacturer or a handyman. It would cost me far more in time to build them than to simply buy them outright.

As has been said so many times before, "You get what you pay for."


corug7 wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:51 PM
"The bottom line is whatever works for you."

Absolutely. If it increases your productivity why wouldn't you purchase it for such a reasonable price? I was just stating that as a weekend warrior (on the gunning side, at least), it makes more sense for ME to purchase a bulb balanced to 5600K (and no, I don't know what the CRI of those bulbs are) for $5 each. The people I shoot for won't be able to tell the difference.

Jay, just wanted you to know I wasn't trying to be smug with my statement. Just as it is worth more to you to purchase these outright, it is worth more to me to experiment and save a buck or seventy where I can.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:59 PM

No, I didn't think you were being smug at all. I just don't have the time, when it comes right down to it. I've been in this business for 30 years and I've come to depend on the "tools" rather than trying to jury-rig something.

I guess it's just a matter of "convenience" for me.





rmack350 wrote on 6/7/2006, 9:15 PM
Definitely. You buy the gear for the convenience or the functionality. I'd never call a stack of 10 c-stands "convenient", but they're really useful if you know what to do with them, and nothing else really does everything they can do.

Jay, when I look at a light I try to judge how fast it'll set up, what I'd need to control it, and how fast I can wrap it at the end of the day. (after deciding if I like what it does, of course). I don't like to be standing there fussing with a light when an impatient client is nearby. If these generally just stay built then they're probably real fast to set up. But for the types of lighting I usually do these days, they'd stay on the shelf much of the time.

Now, if I could get two of these in a 12'x12' size, I'd be using it for most of my tabletop shoots...

Rob Mack
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/8/2006, 4:42 AM

I don't like to be standing there fussing with a light when an impatient client is nearby.

That's my point exactly. As I said, I won't be breaking them down, per se. Just take out of the canvas tote, put them on the stands and I'm done. Reverse the order and you're out the door. Granted, they aren't "the light to end all lights." No one light will do everything.

When I'm doing a job for a client, I usually know what I have to take to get the job done. Honestly, I can't recall ever taking every lighting instrument to a shoot. That's very non-productive, for me, anyway.

They work perfectly for table top shoots! But like some have said, they're not for everyone.


TomE wrote on 6/8/2006, 7:10 AM
Actually the more I see stuff like the ego light the more I am glad I watched Vic Milt's DVD. It would be way more convenient to buy one of these ego lights but for me I can experiment for a lot less money with my own creation -- ala the Vic Milt nanolight idea.

Seeing a product like the ego-light validates to me the use of these fluorescent bulbs.


-TomE
rmack350 wrote on 6/8/2006, 10:03 AM
Half our tabletop shoots lately have been of plasma screen TVs with piano black finishes, so really a wall of diffusion with lights behind it is just about best. The TV's show everything in the room just like a mirror.

What sort of stands do these go on? Can they go on a 5/8" baby stud? I see in the photos that they just prop them up on books and that's fine for hobbyists but if you're working professionally then you need the baby stud option.

I always bring a little more than I expect to use, and I try to get it onto carts and bring it inside. There are several reasons for this - I light for other people and if I've got an experienced DP they'll tend to do more in the lighting setup. I want to have the likely options ready to go, on demand, and if I have to go back to the van for a light I'm just wasting time. A DP will find another solution while I go to the truck.

Often, I'll bring in a box of practicals, squeezers, etc. These Ego lights would usually fall into that category for me.

Rob Mack
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/8/2006, 11:13 AM

Yes, it uses the 5/8 inch stud.


FuTz wrote on 6/9/2006, 5:10 AM
Nice indeed, these lights.
But the *very* first thing that comes to my mind after quickly checking their site is how powerful these lights are.
Seems like the lights are very close to the subjects so I wonder if it's really a good tool for ( let's say ) even a talking head, if you want to establish with a wider shot without having the lamps in the frame.
FuTz wrote on 6/9/2006, 5:14 AM
.... and I'd be curious to compare with a setup consisting of bounced fresnells (or open-face spots) on a white foamcore thightly "flagged" (with black foamcores) on the subjects. This setup would be heavier, requiring more stands, but kind of precise and I guess the quality of light would be close to the Ego one. But it's just a guess of course.
Now, I busted the budget of course, but if anybody's got the lamps and just has to add 3 pieces of foamcore plus metal clips to his arsenal...
Aaaaaanyway, just mee too cents...
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/9/2006, 5:37 AM

Seems like the lights are very close to the subjects so I wonder if it's really a good tool for ( let's say ) even a talking head...

Two feet from the source the aperture is f4.

... if you want to establish with a wider shot without having the lamps in the frame.

How do you define "talking heads"? At two feet from the source the entire upper torso (from waist to head) is evenly lit, and the lights are not in frame.

... and I'd be curious to compare with a setup consisting of bounced fresnells (or open-face spots) on a white foamcore thightly "flagged" (with black foamcores) on the subjects.

And you've just given the perfect example as to why these lights would be preferable. Did you read Rob's comments above? While you're still setting up, the guy using the Egos is already shooting. And while you're still breaking down, the other is on his way home to dinner!

We all have two choices, we can work smarter or we can work harder. Time is money, anything that saves me time allows me to make more money.


jlafferty wrote on 6/9/2006, 9:43 AM
I have to throw in with the DIY crowd -- you've got just a handful of elements here and you could probably build a similar setup for under $30, maybe more if you're going to do the right thing and use environmentally friendly bulbs. Perhaps a savings of $95 isn't worth your time, but at a 76% savings, it's worth mine.

My girlfriend is a metalsmith who works on some unique pieces and she has done a number of shoots involving her pieces on a gradient backdrop with two diffused lights. It takes her probably 45 minutes to setup, and another 20-25 to break down, each time she shoots. When I saw the ad for these lights, it lit a bulb (nyuk, nyuk) and I intend to get a DIY solution together at some point. If/when I do, I'll share the plans. Think about it: a soft white bulb; a base to stand it in; an on/off circuit and switch; a piece of heavy-ish vellum curved around the bulb between two posts. I think that's a trip each to Home Depot and Radio Shack; glue and cold solder; maybe some drill work; 45 minutes to an hour and a half at $95. Build two and you're looking at $190 for maybe an additional half hour.

For anyone who takes a liking to this kind of thing, as an offhand suggestion, get ahold of Make magazine. I got a subscription for Xmas last year and it stands as one of the best gifts I got. Each issue tackles a series of projects, and while specific projects may not be of use to you, they almost always shed light on how to properly use tools or create simple elements of designs and devices that may eventually prove useful.

- jim
FuTz wrote on 6/9/2006, 1:29 PM
Sure we got the same definition of "talking head". It's about "establishing shot" that we seem not to ...



1-
http://www.erichufschmid.net/CNN_PainfulExpose.JPG

2-
http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/images/BBC%20News%2024.jpg
(ok, two t.heads into that one...but still an establishing shot )


To me, and it's *personnal* (so don't even go thinking that I'm trying to get into an argument with you) , it looks a little tight being two feet away with the lamps to make this kind of shots.
Bouncing some lamps on foamcores, it becomes possible.
Want an extra-super wide shot? Simply forget about bouncing and flip the lights towards subject using frost gels.

TAs for the "flagging" part: it was also applicable to these Ego lights too (so: additionnal stands + flags), since they probably splash as much as a bounced light, power of both sources being kept in mind (sure you don't splash as much with a weak source, but you got weak light too).
Aaaaanyway, each one his own I guess...