Lighting: Strobe v Continuous

democrates

I've only got a 580EXii but I'm thinking about studio lighting for portraits.

Like so many aspects of photography lighting presents a whole vista of options, and one of my areas of confusion is why some people prefer strobes to continuous lighting.

My gut instinct is to go for a couple of 500w lamps with brollys and use no flash so what I'm seeing in the viewfinder is what I'll be exposing, but would I later regret taking refuge in that comfort zone?

elven

I think it's what most of us have a problem with when it coems to external lighting, is that we can't seem to visualise what we're going to get if we don't use a continuous light. I did pick up a couple of things though that have made it fall into place a bit more in my head - first, if you simply imagine the strobe to be emitting constant light instead of getting hung up on the idea that it does flash, suddenly it gets easier to visualise your results. Also take into account the fact that you can use a modelling light beside your strobe to give you an idea of what shadows you're going to get. I think the main disatvantage of the continuous lights is the heat, but I'm nots ure if there are other reasons why most people use strobes and why you'd want to make the effort to learn them instead.

democrates

elven wrote: »

I think it's what most of us have a problem with when it coems to external lighting, is that we can't seem to visualise what we're going to get if we don't use a continuous light. I did pick up a couple of things though that have made it fall into place a bit more in my head - first, if you simply imagine the strobe to be emitting constant light instead of getting hung up on the idea that it does flash, suddenly it gets easier to visualise your results. Also take into account the fact that you can use a modelling light beside your strobe to give you an idea of what shadows you're going to get. I think the main disatvantage of the continuous lights is the heat, but I'm nots ure if there are other reasons why most people use strobes and why you'd want to make the effort to learn them instead.

Thanks for the insights elven, that makes sense. Also when you mentioned the heat it occurred to me that the energy consumption being less for strobes may be a big win where you're mobile and depending on batteries and inverters.

I can't envisage doing any work away from mains power in the foreseeable though, and find I'm a bit reluctant to take on the added complications of flash sync, transmitters, master/slave configuration, exposure compensation etc. unless there's a good reason. Maybe a dirty big fan on a stand can offset the heat issue and give the option of windswept portraits into the wager.

elven

Google is your friend. There's a bit of reading on it, seems you're not the only one with this dilemma...

PaulieC

here's a kit that looks like good value

Placebo

2 main factors, indoor vs outdoor
Continuous is going to be bulkier, you will need external power for outdoor shoots, watching out for rain etc aswell.
Strobes would be more compact, and obviously would suffice indoor and outdoor. Also you need not go with same camera brand, if youre looking to save money buy a cheap nikon sb25/24 and use wireless/cable to trigger than strobe off camera.

Saying that obviously continuous lighting will give you a much better idea of how the shot is going to turn out etc

Another really important factor is the intensity of the light, you can control that with strobes which would gives jaw dropping results, im not sure how this works with continuous lighting and whether you have that much control.

DotOrg

democrates wrote: »

I've only got a 580EXii but I'm thinking about studio lighting for portraits.

Like so many aspects of photography lighting presents a whole vista of options, and one of my areas of confusion is why some people prefer strobes to continuous lighting.

My gut instinct is to go for a couple of 500w lamps with brollys and use no flash so what I'm seeing in the viewfinder is what I'll be exposing, but would I later regret taking refuge in that comfort zone?

i had the exact same thoughts when doing my first lighting for pictures, I first used small continuous lights used in video prodction, great power but got so hot, ytou couldn't stand near them for any length of time, peoples pupils go tiny when they see bright light, which doesn't look good.

they get hot, very hot, so can't easily move them, you can't put softboxes or umbrellas right beside them


Strobes, take a bit more practice but are much easier cos they are cold, the light can be modified by a million different softboxes, umbrellas, ringlights, snoots etc etc

go to a studio like, thelightexchange.com and spend €60 and try out proper studio lights and you'll see how amazing the results from strobes can be

democrates

Elven: interesting reading on the result links thanks, I've googled strobe lights before alright and that's what raised my brow on the issues strobists can encounter, but I guess you get out of it what you put into it.

cambo_gueno: that sure looks like a good kit for a beginner like me and I've bought from them before, cheers.

Placebo: yes a big issue with continuous seems to be the heat/light problem going by elven + links and DotOrg's post, to match the light from strobes the continuous have to be either so close they're baking the tog and model or be into the kilowatts.

DotOrg: the studio hire is just the ticket ok, €60 isn't that much for all that will be learned on a first test shoot, I suppose that just leaves the willing victim(s). You also mentioned video and I'd completely forgotten about that (I've the 5dii). So far it's looking like strobes may be the best answer for photos, but I'll have to see how the video fares with normal lighting as a seperate exercise, I'm thinking lens filters will be needed to mitigate the yellow.