Originally posted by Brooke Meyer There's no such thing as worthy of professional use. It works or it doesn't. I have no problem using $63 YN560III's for a shoot. Or $500 Einstein's. It's just photons. Check out Kirk Tucks
Visual Science Lab blog You're right, it was a poorly constructed sentence that didn't make my thoughts completely clear for you. Yes my 40W worklight in the garage is worthy of professional use for a special case. I was actually referring to my set-up as one that many photogs depending on studio portrait income, studio professionals, would not consider for regular use. But yes it can be worthy of professional use if it works.
Anyway with even hot-shoe mounted flashheads being a confusing topic for a lot of us adding stuff like what to use in a studio, shadows and highlights, head and neck position of your client, what the heck do you do with hands, shooting techniques and tricks, how to put your subject at ease (biggie!), make it all more daunting for even experienced photographers thinking about studio portraiture. When I was looking into it sometimes it had the feel of a private club with secret handshakes. Light meters, lumen calculations, "classic" lighting, where to put which light, how many and what kind and when, triggers and syncing and... Oh my! The only way to begin understanding was to just do it.
The biggest roadblock for me personally was clearly understanding even
basic lighting technique. All of us have seen a pretty face look bad in the wrong light. I didn't get the
details of what made artificial lighting bad or good, why one shot the face looks fat, flat, or otherwise unflattering while in another it looks pretty good. Nevermind all the posing stuff. That's where continuous lighting like my LED's is a HUGE assist for me. Real-time results.
Like Clackers says, for a beginner like me it's so much easier to see the effect of a 6" nudge of a key light this way or a simple forehead forward and down shift in real time instead of needing to shoot and individually review a half dozen pics one at a time with one strobe, then two strobes. Tehn turn your head this way. Now chin up. Nevermind, chin down.... I think in the time a new home studio photographer could set-up and shoot 10 different flash/strobe-lighted test-shots I could have composed dozens of variances using different light combinations/modifiers, positions and poses and come up with a more predictable idea of the end results I expect. It's faster and more enjoyable for both me and my subject when a session moves along without stop and look every shot.
As I build experience I'm pretty sure that strobes will be part of it too if i stick with it. I get that my light output is limited and restricting depending on what the intent and subject is. I'm not doing stop-action with any continuous lighting that doesn't at least cause the person to squint and tear up. Understood. But my completely inexperienced opinion is that especially for someone new to DSLR's and interested in setting up a small photo area in their home, using constant light sources whether it be from a well-lit window or LED's/flourescents or a combination of both is absolutely worth considering over flash, and a whole lot easier to pick up technique from.
Shoot a single image and review, rinse, repeat may well frustrate many photographers, particularly when they don't have someone they can mentor with outside of a YouTube video. I know it would me. There's just so many variables, with even a minor tilt of the head or 1 foot closer to a light source making the difference between a keeper and another blah shot. Ya get the lights right but the pose is wrong and I guess wrong it might be the lights. Or the pose is right but too much shadow. Was the light used wrong or just needed to be angled differently, up/down/over a bit? There's a reason I see lots of landscapes and outdoor family pics posted here and elsewhere. Constant lighting lets the shooter see what the results will be before they take the shot. They're somewhat confident about the result and look forward to finding those opportunities and take 'em. . I'm trying to do the same in a small studio and make it easier to suss out and thus repeatable. I've not yet developed that eye for what a light is going to reveal when it goes off, and I know I'm not in the minority. It's no wonder not that many forum members ask about this stuff. I doubt it's because of a lack of interest but more that they don't even know where to begin and the costs seem like they'd be more than many of us could afford.
Anyone at all interested in home portraits for fun (or maybe an occasional dollar or two) could cover all the most basic needs with one window, one decent variable 100W LED and one reflector (My wife wishes I had stopped there
). And they'd start getting to the results they'd like a whole lot faster and more reliably than going the strobe route. it doesn't have to be expensive or difficult to grasp. Once the lighting starts sinking in, and it quickly will, it's so much easier to concentrate on technique and people-skills. Everyone here can do portraits, and good ones too! Just make it simple, and IMHO continuous lighting plays a big part in it.
That's my .02 cents anyway.
Last edited by gatorguy; 02-17-2017 at 08:56 AM.