[philbaum]

I really hope this thread does not turn into some big debate about whether continuous lighting or flashes are the way to go. Because its not about which method is right or wrong, its about what tools can be applied to different jobs.

For the last 2 years, i've been drifting into helping a local theatre group get the publicity and decorative photos they need to conduct business.

One of the things they do routinely is to take "head shots" for each new play, and these head shots appear in program bios for that play, and perhaps in media stuff to. We usually end up taking these portrait like shots, from a few to 2 dozen at times, in different buildings with different lighting. Promo shots we usually take with regular theatre lighting (which is continuous of course :-))

I've been encouraging other photo club members to join me in this effort. The problem with flash, is that different photographers have different incompatible camera flash equipment. With continuous lighting, we can all take turns and shoot the same scene and not have to fight incompatibilities.

So i went out yesterday and bought a basic 2 stand, 2 light, 2 umbrella, one backdrop kit system from Westcott for $400. It has a convenient carry bag as well. For some basic "head shots" , i think its going to work out very well. I don't have to worry about batteries for a flash, spare flashes, problems with timing, etc. Trouble shooting seems a lot more simple with this older technology. (no, i did not buy the really expensive continuous lighting with variable power settings for this kind of money :-)

Anyone gone down this path with similar experience??

[alohadave]

I don't have to worry about batteries for a flash, spare flashes, problems with timing, etc.

You just have to worry about having wall sockets or an inverter/battery/generator where you are shooting, and hope that your lights don't overload the circuit you plug into.

I'm not bagging on your choice, every technique has considerations.

[flyer]

I use Britek continuous fluorescent lights, and I love it. You can include movement in your pictures since you can use different shutter speeds, you don't need a flashmeter to balance your lighting, and your subject can move more freely since your camera's metering will adapt if your subject gets closer or further from the lights.

And it is also easier to work with amateurs/kids since they can move freely and (especially kids) won't get startled/scared by the flash.

Don't get me wrong. I still use flashes, but quite often the continuous lights will fill the job perfectly.

[cwood]

I've been encouraging other photo club members to join me in this effort. The problem with flash, is that different photographers have different incompatible camera flash equipment. With continuous lighting, we can all take turns and shoot the same scene and not have to fight incompatibilities.

There is no such thing as incompatible flash equipment with modern DSLR's and TTL flashes. Since you should be shooting in manual anyway - they all work with each other and they all work with the same remote triggers. With a Canon 580 exII I can easily hit F8 bounced off a silver 32 inch umbrella at 1/2 power. I can trigger the flash with either my cheapo ebay triggers, my pocket wizard plus II's or my pocket wizard Flex TT5's with any of the Pentax, Nikon or Canon bodies I have used. I can get about 400-500 pictures out of a set of 4 x AA batteries and it all fits neatly inside the same back pack as my 2 cameras and 2 lenses.

Power output is not quite as consistent as using high-end studio strobes but it i similar to using low end studio equipment.

And without getting into the kind of debate you wanted to avoid - there is a time and place for continuous lighting and this does not seem like the time or place. If I were to bring other lights to do headshots it would be alien bees. Continuous lighting is great for complex lighting situations with several lights because it allow actual "modeling" of the lights - it is also great for dragging your shutter with a mix of strobes and hotlights. But for headshots I can see no benefit to using hotlights.

This is part of a series of headshots I did for a local MUA who does eyelash extensions. I bumped the ISO to 400 so I could get a bit more DOF on this shot (F11). This is taken with a Canon 580exII into a silver umbrella in a hair salon.

[RolloR]

i love and use both continuous and flash systems!

for convenience, my vote goes to flash though.

I have a whole bunch of manual flashes. I use Chinese wireless triggers with them.

They are way easier to carry than florescent dishes, and the best thing about them is they don't make my models sweat too much. With a bunch of GN 21@ISO100 flashes bounced off something (ceiling perhaps), I can comfortably shoot at ISO200, 1/160, f8.

I have one thing against flashes though: Recycle time.


But I love continuous lighting. It's easier to focus accurately (both manual and AF), I don't have to worry about recycle time, and it's useful for videos also.

2-3 dishes of 100W per dish (4x25w spiral energy-saving bulbs) is ok for me. I like bulbs they're easier to carry. Usually I combine 3 Daylight bulbs with 1 Warm white bulb in a 4-bulb dish.

[philbaum]

I use Britek continuous fluorescent lights, and I love it. You can include movement in your pictures since you can use different shutter speeds, you don't need a flashmeter to balance your lighting, and your subject can move more freely since your camera's metering will adapt if your subject gets closer or further from the lights.

And it is also easier to work with amateurs/kids since they can move freely and (especially kids) won't get startled/scared by the flash.

Don't get me wrong. I still use flashes, but quite often the continuous lights will fill the job perfectly.

flyer and rolloR, you two get exactly what i'm talking about Flyer's point about continuous lighting freeing one from shutter speed prestrictions, much more reliable focusing, no waiting for recharge, etc., indicates some of the pros to continuous lighting. Its interesting that flash mfr had to come up with "modeling light" mode to help the user with the lighting setup, when there is no need for such a feature with continuous.

cwood, you are obviously adept at using your flashes(great photo by the way). , but for someone like myself who can't remember the last time he used a flash, the low tech solution appeals a lot. No, i won't be selling the flashes i have, but its nice to know what all the options are.

I do appreciate everyone's input, i learn a lot from these discussions.

[cwood]

flyer and rolloR, you two get exactly what i'm talking about Flyer's point about continuous lighting freeing one from shutter speed prestrictions, much more reliable focusing, no waiting for recharge, etc., indicates some of the pros to continuous lighting. Its interesting that flash mfr had to come up with "modeling light" mode to help the user with the lighting setup, when there is no need for such a feature with continuous.

cwood, you are obviously adept at using your flashes(great photo by the way). , but for someone like myself who can't remember the last time he used a flash, the low tech solution appeals a lot. No, i won't be selling the flashes i have, but its nice to know what all the options are.

I do appreciate everyone's input, i learn a lot from these discussions.

Well... your reasonining seems to have changed since your first post - the only reason you gave for not using flashes initially was "incompatibility" between systems. I would also consider there to be nothing more "low tech" than running flashes in manual mode. With a proper light meter, doing headshots with strobes should be no more difficult than using hotlights since your subjects will not be running around all over the place.

Of course you have already bought the hotlights and I'm sure you will use them effectively - but this is not really a situation that calls for continuous lighting

[philbaum]

Well... your reasonining seems to have changed since your first post - the only reason you gave for not using flashes initially was "incompatibility" between systems. I would also consider there to be nothing more "low tech" than running flashes in manual mode. With a proper light meter, doing headshots with strobes should be no more difficult than using hotlights since your subjects will not be running around all over the place.

Of course you have already bought the hotlights and I'm sure you will use them effectively - but this is not really a situation that calls for continuous lighting

of course my reasoning has changed, i didn't know about the compatibility under manual. I do read what others say and try to learn from it. I've also tried ebay triggers, even added more antenna to them, etc., and sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't. And when they didn't, i couldn't explain it or fix it.

I also have another use in mind for the continuous lighting, and this is my way of learning about a different approach.

[Ira]

I'm all about continuous light for stills, portraits and other set-up work--since 1970.

I just can't wrap my head around intricate flash work, especially anticipating shadows, and I find continuous easier.

[flyer]

Just a short add-on: you can't use flashes for video.

[FullertonImages]

Just a short add-on: you can't use flashes for video.

Indeed! That is something I've been at odds with lately. I love working with flash, and I feel like I prefer them to continuous. Although, I haven't spent nearly as much time with continuous, so that might be an incomplete conclusion to draw. But I've also been getting more into video and have been wanting to use some lighting in those situations. High on my list of things to buy next Is an Elinchrom Quadra and/or Ranger lights for location use. But then I also realize that regardless of how sweet they are for stills, they are still useless for video. Taking a look at some of the pro quality video light, particularly the LED cool light from brands like ARRI and LitePanels, I have to say I'm pretty interested. Especially since the heat of hot lights was one of my main turn offs.

But more so than being interested than get continuous lights instead of strobes, is the fact that with the hybridization of of still and video imaging in the HDSLR movement, and with the increasing quality and affordability of color temperature accurate LED cool light technology, how long will it be before we see the first hybrid video/strobe lights. We've already got LED modeling lights on the Elinchrom Quadra, but they are far too weak to be usable for video; and battery light is also a huge problem with them in regards to extended use. And LitePanels already has an on-camera light LitePanel Mini that now has basic strobe functions. But both of those are fairly incomplete solutions.

What I want is something that is as awesome of a strobe as a 1100w/s Elinchrom Ranger, with fully functional LED cool light video modeling/video lights. Being able to use one light in the field for photo and video, and being able to use all the Elinchrom modifiers I have for video usage as well, would be amazing. I'm sure it will be done sooner or later, I'm just wondering when.

[alohadave]

Just a short add-on: you can't use flashes for video.

That's not technically true.

Strobist: World Debut: Hypernova Music Vid, Shot with Flash at 10 FPS

It's not cheap or easy.

[flyer]

O.K. let's just say it's out of reach for the average videographer.

[alohadave]

O.K. let's just say it's out of reach for the average videographer.

Very true. It's pretty much a one of a kind deal, so far.

[FullertonImages]

Very true. It's pretty much a one of a kind deal, so far.

Not really. Andrew Kornylak has been doing that for a while with Nikon D3's. Check out some of this stuff. Although he usually plays around with slower frame rates for a more jumpy stop motion feels, rather than the fairly smooth, somewhat cinematic feel of the Hypernova video. There's also some Smashing Pumpkins video that someone mentioned in the comments of the Hypernova vid that apparently used the same technique back in the 90's with film cameras. The Matrix also used a similar technique for shooting some of their fight scene. To shoot the scene where the camera would spin around the fight scene really fast, they had rig of still cameras all placed in an arc around the scene, that were trigger sequentially at really high speeds, so they could slow it down and get a slow motion look from a moving camera.

As for the Hypernova, from an artistic and conceptual standpoint, I thought it was pretty cool and technically well executed. But as far as the content, the video itself and the song, I thought they were both pretty dumb.