I'm not sure about the differences in output. Only a test for f-stop/ISO will determine which is more accurate, or more importantly, which is more useable. The camera and lens isn't an issue as long as it's a fixed aperture lens.

If you really want the background to be white, you will need additional lights just for that purpose. Be prepared to purchase more lights than you think you need, and go for the largest number of watt seconds.

Larry, my thoughts exactly.
Would it not ne more efficient to have a cove built as a set for the furniture, assuming an on going project? My thinking is that paper would not be wide enough and muslin can be a pain with dirt and wrinkles.
1 or 2 large soft boxes should handle the background lighting at F22 and 2 lights bounced into umbrellas to light the furniture itself, F11 should give the dof neccessary.
Question: would strip lighting and acent snoots be more effective than umbrellas?

Hi,
True watt seconds is the actual physical electical power used by the unit's flash burst. "Effective" means that by adjusting the configuration of the reflector used one can, in theory increase the "effective" outputs.

It's the same theory used in a "mini Mag Lite". If you narrow the beam, the center will be brighter.

Paul Buff has used this ploy in both his Alien Bees and his other lighting to "over rate" his flash units for years. There is nothing wrong with his lighting, I just disagree with his marketing. I spent some time with a lighting importer/manufacturer back in the '80's testing his products, and attempting to design a competing product.

If you are going to use soft boxes, then his rating goes out the window because you really should be using the units
"bare bulb" in the soft box to reduce hot spots.

Back to the original questions---since you are going to be photographing varied sizes of furniture, I actually think that you should consider the power pack and head type of lighting. Something like Speedotron's Brown Line, which is fairly economical and very durable would be something to consider. Since you are photographing static items, you are not worried about fast recycle times.

If you are shooting digital, then an even better way to do this is something like the tungston lighting systems by Photoflex.

Either way, you are also going to need a good flash/incident light meter.

I also agree that in this type of situation, you should build in a permament sweep onto a dedicated wall space.

I also suggest that you might Email David Brooks directly as he is pretty much an expert re lighting. He wrote a book on lighting back in the 70's for Peterson's.

Dave,

Thanks for the plug, I guess - my lighting book actually published by HP Books has been out of print for years. But some of what I learned that went into it involved working in a furniture photography studio for several years. All the work there was done with tungsten lighting. Furniture is a tricky subject to light and photograph, and being able to see very clearly the effect of your lighting, whether there are problem surface reflections for instance, is easier to see and control with tungsten lighting. And, you don't need flash because furniture doesn't move. Also with tungsten it is much easier to obtain an accurate white balance to produce a clean white background. Unless electronic flash has UV coated flashtubes obtaining an accurate white balance can be elusive.