RobertinRI Loc: Central Falls, RI, USA

I just bought a continuous light set (three umbrellas) from ephotoinc.com for $200. I thought hard about strobe vs continuous, and decided that the new flourescents are so much cooler than the old incandescents, and I can see and control the light as I move the reflectors. I have only unpacked one light (following the advice earlier) and they seem well constructed.
I do appreciate all the preceding advice!

Slate Mike Loc: Barre, VT

I would suggest that you consider a monobloc strobe, maybe an Alien Bee 400 (320 Ws.)This will givbe you the ability to "see" what your lighting will look like before the shot with the modeling light. With an umbrella and light stand and an inexpensive set of radio triggers, the total for all should be under your $350 budget and you would be well on your way to establishing a good set of studio lights.
I would also suggest that you take the free "Strobist 101" course on Flickr. Good luck!

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Well, that is a real issue. Sometimes there IS no solution. There are things we need to do: light placement (both horizontal and vertical) and light power have to be adjusted. If your space is too small and you cannot adjust the light you have almost insurmountable limits. If your small space has white walls and ceiling, that is one more problem as light bounces all over the place making it difficult or impossible to get good side-to-side ratios.

If you are stuck with the lights having to be out in front, you may have to be known as the "King of Flat Lighting." It is limiting, but done well, can be very flattering, too. In fact, for groups, a single light DIRECTLY over the camera is a good way to shoot. It virtually guarantees no shadows on faces.

One approach might be to invest in a 32x48 inch piece of BLACK foamcore. Use it as a light subtractor. Place it on the side of the subject on which you want less light. It works - sort of a reverse reflector. That won't work all that well for groups.

As you pointed out, cheaper things are cheaper for several reasons. It could be just build quality or more likely build and adjustment range. Certainly, if used within their working range, they can be perfect.

One possible solution to the "cannot dial the strobes low enough," MAY be a neutral density filter. I am not sure what your issue is with not being able to lower the light, so that could be a dumb idea, too.

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

Looks like you worked it out. I wish you the best.

Photography2 Loc: Wi.

Thanks CaptainC I will try a single light DIRECTLY over the camera and I will also try putting black foamcore or my black back drop on the side where I don’t need as much light.
The center light will probably add a butterfly effect. Haven’t tried that but I have read a lot about It. I am always open to new ideas because I want to continue to learn.

Thanks again

Guy Johnstone Loc: Ocean Shores WA

Capt. C idea of a reverse reflector is interesting if you have the room. We use it all the time and product work I've never tried it for a portrait. One of the things you can do in a small studio is to have your main and fill light from the same location. Use a grid on your main and a soft box and your fill. My avatar is shot that way. It's remarkable how much control you have, if you have a selection of grids to choose from. Modifiers on and at your lights will also reduce their output, if you don't want to put something over your lens. Window screen over your lights works great, won't change the color and is very cheap

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Give it a shot. I learned that single-light technique from Clay Blackmore, who learned it from Monte Zucker. I used it the other day again and no nasty shadows on anyone in a family of 8. The butterfly light, however, is really a style that will only work on one person - you need to have the light directly over the subject and you will get that small "butterfly" shadow under the nose. Don't expect that on a group.