Review on 💡 ePhoto Daylight Balanced CFL Fluorescent Light Bulb - Perfect for Photography & Video, 5500K, 45W by Callie Boyd

To me they just don't serve their intended purpose. I'm not the type to go too hard most of the time, but this is one of those items that doesn't live up to its advertised specs. I bought one of these bulbs last July and set it aside unopened for testing. in a future project where I need constant illuminance and a sufficiently bright light source - with an explicitly stated "daylight" temperature of 5500K. The intent was to use a mix of fluorescent and constant bulbs, with no color shifts or other temperature adjustment issues that need to be addressed in post-production. And that with energy-efficient light sources. I thought it would be pretty easy given their characteristics. Well today was the day I opened the box to set everything up and do some basic testing.1. The lamp I received does not match the description or the picture. CFLs in these higher wattage ranges usually have vents as part of the lamp body, like this one. 45W (= 225 "tungsten" watts) compact fluorescent bulbs produce a significant amount of heat, but this bulb has absolutely NO ventilation - no matter what the picture shows. After warming up sufficiently, it didn't get any hotter than the 9 watt CFLs or LEDs I use in my desk lamps, leading me to believe they weren't high power lamps as advertised and the reason for the difference in output levels in paragraph 2.2. 45W CFLs have slightly more than twice the overall brightness of a standard 100W household tungsten lamp. That's the published and industry accepted value, but they're rated far less than half a traditional lightbulb, and certainly not two of them. The Graflex camera test shot (as published) was taken with a CFL I lamp. It is adjustable in angle and offers space for a standard umbrella. The umbrella used was a 40 inch translucent white version and the light was tilted 60 degrees from vertical - on a standard adjustable light stand and placed at 6ft and 5ft - with the umbrella used as a soft reflector . light sources were used. The RAW exposure image shown here is a close-up of this image as seen in the Nikon ViewNX2 software screenshot, with Exif and exposure settings f/5.6 at 1.3 seconds. Yes, over a second exposure at an average aperture, all with an estimated light output of 225 watts at 6ft. Not nearly adequate for my purposes and far from what I expected. taken with the same setup and light position - using a very old (and faded) 100 watt incandescent bulb instead of a CFL. The Exif data for this shot showed settings as f/5.3 @ 1/4 second. There were no changes in camera settings between the two pictures taken. The exposure time is by far very different and clearly shows the lack of performance when using compact fluorescent lamps. The Nikon 5200 used to capture these images was manually set to ISO 100 in override program mode to minimize differences in apertures and keep the shots comparable. The markings on the packaging and the lamp itself clearly indicate its high power output. and color temperature, so that the wrong product was not accidentally packed in the right box. If the performance is anything but normal, it makes absolutely no sense to me to care what the actual color temperature is, so I didn't bother to check it. Quadruple the number of bulbs and required fittings/sockets I would use for them makes color temperature a moot point for this type of investment to counteract power loss. as a replacement for the home, not premium items as described in the specifications. Excluding operational versions of high intensity fluorescent lamps. I stick to natural sunlight, Nikon flashes or photogenic all-in-ones and/or use standard household light bulbs along with corrective cameras or light filters. They may suffice for use in small controlled setups without the need for color mixing, but not for my use. I'm glad I only bought one of these and it's also the last time I put something away without first opening and testing it.