[Bob 256]

Understood, but would you use a high power flash in manual mode up close to a baby? Probably not. I think that's all I meant to say in my original post (......"certain circumstances".....). I didn't say that flashes should be banned around infants (nor owls), just that there might be a reason for caution which probably doesn't apply for other lighting. It wasn't really advice (not to use a flash for infant photography). It was mentioned as just one possible drawback to that type of lighting.

I've used flash myself and flash photography is great so don't read me as an ardent anti-flash type

But back to the OP's original inquiry. Their use of continuous lighting in my opinion, would work fine given the proper placement and type of source. They don't have to go out and buy any expensive flash equipment to get good baby photos.

---

Last edited by Bob 256; 12-07-2021 at 08:32 PM.

[GhostRed7]

Because budget is a concern, I, like a lot of people, are suggesting continuous lights/hot lights. Well, I am going to go one step farther.

Go to wally world, home depot, lowes or your favorite hardware store and get a couple of clip on lamps with a reflector. https://www.homedepot.com/p/HDX-8-1-2-in-150-Watt-Aluminum-Incandescent-Ligh...7894/202847393 Found in either electrical or tools. Then hit the lightbulb isle and pick up some CPF or Led lightbulbs that are 5600 K. Take them home and clip them onto the back of the dining room chairs and bounce the light off the ceiling or the wall behind you.

You can also get some form core white boards and bounce the light off of them. To do that, you will need a backdrop and reflector holder which sits onto a light stand. https://www.adorama.com/fpxcp200.html?

Hopes this helps. Links are for example only.

Awesome idea and wouldn't have thought of that, but honestly, pretty brilliant work-around. Could even go a step further and use them behind one of the umbrellas/softboxes from the CFL lights where needed. At ~$12 USD i could get a few.

A couple of suggestions for lights then:

I've found the Amaran 200D very useful (There's also a higher price but less powerful bi-color version. Bi-color will always have less effective power).
Color accurate, plenty strong as a kicker to augment the window light, and bright enough as a key if needed as long as you're comfortable with slightly higher ISO's. If you're on a tighter budget even the Sokani x60 (80W) is enough to augment the window light, and they're a legit bargain IMO. I have both, as well as the RGB Sokani. Don't automatically reject the home-built lights using Lowe's/Home Depot lighting fixtures either. I've not ever tried them but I often see comments from others about how well certain ones perform. You'd have to do some research on Youtube to get suggestions and tips.

Now my continuous light favorite: The Nanlite FS-300, which I have a pair of. Powerful enough that I've used them with the Nanlite fresnel for outdoor morning and afternoon shoots in place of my AD-200's on three different occasions so far and quite effectively. They're a bit more expensive and perhaps overkill for what you need for indoor baby pics, but I do highly recommend them. For what you pay they're amazing.

Just my 2 cents, maybe 1 cent.

Heavily eyeballing the RGB one. Even without the baby stuff, it's got my brain moving thinking about musician shots (of myself and/or my guitars lol)

Understood, but would you use a high power flash in manual mode up close to a baby? Probably not. I think that's all I meant to say in my original post (......"certain circumstances".....). I didn't say that flashes should be banned around infants (nor owls), just that there might be a reason for caution which probably doesn't apply for other lighting. It wasn't really advice (not to use a flash for infant photography). It was mentioned as just one possible drawback to that type of lighting.

I've used flash myself and flash photography is great so don't read me as an ardent anti-flash type

But back to the OP's original inquiry. Their use of continuous lighting in my opinion, would work fine given the proper placement and type of source. They don't have to go out and buy any expensive flash equipment to get good baby photos.

I don't mind if the convo strays, but probably going continuous for now and add an off-cam flash later based on the replies summary. Even though rainy/cloudy today, i'm going to take a test shot as well as note where in-cam meter goes neutral and report back. Between 11a & sunset, it was pretty bright in the area i'm thinking.

[clackers]

might be a reason for caution which probably doesn't apply for other lighting.

Well, I really wouldn't be shining studio lighting continuously into a baby's eyes, Bob ... the constant glare of some lit up panel versus a 1/10,000s flash.

As in adults, a fluorescent panel or a silver reflector using the sun is a massive distraction - the subject squints. Unless they're a trained model, a normal expression is difficult to achieve, so that rules out a lot of portraits.

By, the way, the owls were in your neck of the woods ... Boise's Peregrine Fund Centre for Birds of Prey. My wife and I had a great morning there!

[robgski]

Lume Cube makes avariety of photo quality compact lights and modifier, controllable by phone . Great lightin option.

[gatorguy]

Well, I really wouldn't be shining studio lighting continuously into a baby's eyes, Bob ... the constant glare of some lit up panel versus a 1/10,000s flash.

I agree with you. If the only light source will be artificial it's not the best for an infant IMO. Then again I don't do baby pics.

The best case is finding a nice window and augmenting with continuous or flash if needed (if a reflector isn't enough to fill in the shadow), or a simple flash if that's your preference. With some decent natural light not much more is needed, just add some balance. Or fix it in post.

[phat_bog]

We have a newborn I've seen Godox/Flashpoint mentioned a lot with some debate on the round vs rectangle heads, but that's all i've dug up so far.
Thanks in advance.

A newborn is always good news and a reason to upgrade or improve your equipement !
Godox are the best. They're top notch, very agressive on the market, top brands like profoto and elinchrom are already loosing pro market parts because of godox, at least here in europe.
BUT , for the sake of your newborn : limit flash, or at least no direct flash light. Not good for his eyes, not good for his brain. Better use indirect continuous light. And quickly offer him sunglasses for next summer, best easy way to preserve his eyesight developpement.

[GhostRed7]

I agree with you. If the only light source will be artificial it's not the best for an infant IMO. Then again I don't do baby pics.

The best case is finding a nice window and augmenting with continuous or flash if needed (if a reflector isn't enough to fill in the shadow), or a simple flash if that's your preference. With some decent natural light not much more is needed, just add some balance. Or fix it in post.

We're probably going to use our dining room table. The dining room gets a ridiculous amount of natural light (where the rest of the house is starved), so the lighting will definitely be an augment vs sole. I'm a big "fix it in post" guy. Before I got into digital photography again, i spent about a decade helping folk editing film mostly doing color correcting & grading.

A newborn is always good news and a reason to upgrade or improve your equipement !
Godox are the best. They're top notch, very agressive on the market, top brands like profoto and elinchrom are already loosing pro market parts because of godox, at least here in europe.
BUT , for the sake of your newborn : limit flash, or at least no direct flash light. Not good for his eyes, not good for his brain. Better use indirect continuous light. And quickly offer him sunglasses for next summer, best easy way to preserve his eyesight developpement.

It'd be an off-camera flash to the side/up to the side, never direct. For now i'll probably get the continuous and augment with a godox v1 down the road.