|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
1000 watt Strobes vs 1000 watt Continuous light
What are the advantages and disadvantages? Jan 04 08 10:30 am Link All advantages are strobe. All disadvatages are Contiunous xcept cost. EL Jan 04 08 10:33 am Link Continuous gets very very very very hot. Model wouldn't be comfortable. And she might end up with a nice tan. Jan 04 08 10:33 am Link HottShotz wrote: the hotlights get hot. really, really, really hot. Jan 04 08 10:34 am Link HottShotz wrote: A 1000 Watt-Second strobe gives the equivalent exposure of 1 second with a 1000 Watt hot light. Jan 04 08 10:35 am Link Continuous are cheaper to buy into but they suck lots more power and put out a lot less useable light. I sometimes use them for beauty shots as I can see exactly what I'm getting and I like the deep shadows, shallow dof and the directionality. The shot of Jennifer Tilly in my port was done with a 1000 watt Lowell DP as the keylight. I used it for this shot mainly so I could warm up the subject and foreground and let all the window light go blue. It's the light I usually lug around for the makeup artist, but every now and then I put it to real use. Jan 04 08 10:41 am Link EL PIC wrote: Pretty much true, though really good continous lights are pretty expensive. Jan 04 08 10:42 am Link Most of you suggest using strobes as opposed to constant. How about strobes vs constant florescent? I'm looking to order my first big light kit next week and have a couple of nice florescent constant lighting kits picked out on B&H. But I am trying to get an idea as to whether or not I'd be better off with those constant lights, or picking up some AB strobes instead, since I'll be learning how to handle studio lighting with whatever I get? Jan 04 08 10:47 am Link EL PIC wrote: False. Continuous allows you to see EXACTLY what the lighting is like on the model before you press the shutter. Modeling lights on strobes can't give you that. Jan 04 08 10:51 am Link HottShotz wrote: the percentages of the constiuent colors that are emitted by strobe are different from those that are emitted by tungsten lamps. Photoshop and gels won't change that. Jan 04 08 10:52 am Link Bill Mason Images wrote: Also the only option for motion pictures, except for Disco dancing scenes. Jan 04 08 10:53 am Link EL PIC wrote: Bill Mason Images wrote: The human eye is more adaptable to light than your camera, so not even Continuous lights are true WYSIWG. A good 250w modeling lamp works wonders for lower powered ( Jan 04 08 10:55 am Link I simply don't like hot lights for stills. I want to be able to control light intensity and dropoff. Hot lights are generally fixed output, and if you make them variable, the light temperature changes. To regulate the light, you move them closer or further from the subject, but doing that also affects dropoff. The only way to get totally controllable, consisten light is to use strobes. You can select the light temperature by choosing a tube that is appropriate for what you are doing. Whatever temperature you select will be the same no matter what the power output you have chosen for the light. You can select intensity by adjusting power output. You can control dropoff by changing the modifier or moving a light closer or further from the subject. Imagine it this way, you can set a power intensity at X and a distance to the suject as Y. Let's say you want to change the dropoff so you move the lights further from the subject, but you still want the same intensity. You simply increase the power outbput of the light. With hot lights you both change the dropoff and the intensity when you move the lights back. The only hightlights I really enjoy are kino flos, in part because they aren't hot. Jan 04 08 10:55 am Link -Asylum- wrote: Yup...I burned a nice chunk of a hard plastic table at school, plus a couple of nice little burns for myself...I used them once on a model from here for a workshop...she didn't last no more than 10 minutes under those lights, and I think those were only between 500-750 watts...Luckily they were some strobes set up also... Jan 04 08 10:57 am Link rp_photo wrote: I'm also a professional videographer, so I have both. Shooting artistic nudes and figure studies is so much easier with continuous lighting. You can see the shadows develop as you pose the model or move the lights. You do need to be vigilant with WB when working with tungsten. Too many photographers shoot on presets and never get a satisfactory skin tone. Jan 04 08 10:59 am Link I used a constant fluorescent in a softbox. It gives the equivalent of 500 watts of light. Color is great, but not that bright, especially in a box. If you want to create the illusion of window light, I suggest you build a fluorescent bank. I have one with 30 compact fluorescents in it. 3000 watts of cool light and it uses very little electricity. Cost about $100 If you want flash, the ABs are small and pretty efficient. I have 3 and all the accessories/stands in a pelican 1650 case. Jan 04 08 11:01 am Link I like to paint with light. I shoot with 1,000 watt focusing spots. I like to see exactly where the light and shadows are before i press the shutter. I also just love the "movie" feel i get with hot lights. Jan 04 08 11:01 am Link HottShotz wrote: The heat output of 1000w tungsten is immense. Lots of fans , AC or simply shutting off the heat might be necessary depending on where you are located! Jan 04 08 11:04 am Link EL PIC wrote: Really! You seem so sure! I think thats just how you see it. Not true, it depends on what your doing as to what lights work better. I actually use both all the time. Love to have both! Jan 04 08 11:08 am Link This topic comes up often -- and always from the misunderstanding that watts = light. That's just not true even though most manufacturers post the watts prominently. The amount of light (measured in lumens) output by a 1000W bulb varies greatly. The following are all continuous lamps: A tungsten bulb averages 15 lumens per watt. A halogen bulb averages 15 - 25 lumens per watt. A fluorescent bulb averages 50 - 100 lumens per watt. A sodium vapor lamp averages 100 - 200 lumens per watt. Since lumens are a direct measure of visible light, you can now directly compare these bulbs. An average 100W fluorescent bulb is roughly 5 times brighter than a 100W tungsten. I said all that because your subject suggests you were comparing flash vs continuous at the same wattage, thereby making them equal in terms of the light they output and leaving the comparison to things like cost, heat, color cast, etc. Just wanted to be sure you understood the watts light output thing! Jan 04 08 11:09 am Link PhotosbyChuck wrote: Well there you go, now we can end this thread, that explains it all! Jan 04 08 11:12 am Link A 1K hot light isn't THAT hot, nor that expensive. I'll bet you can get a good Mole Richardson 'Baby' on Ebay for around $350 or so. Having said that, you'll need a beefier stand, like a c-stand to hold it, they're pretty heavy. The Baby is a fresnel. There are, of course open face lights too, like the Lowell DP, or even the Mole "Mickey Mole". Unless you want to spend thousands, hot lights are tungsten color balanced, while strobes are daylight, and if you put CTB (blue gel) to match them to daylight, you'll lose %40 of your output. Everything has a use. -W Jan 04 08 11:13 am Link Pete H wrote: Maybe you have something useful to say for the OP? Or are you simply working on your post count? Jan 04 08 12:02 pm Link Just my 2 cents to the OP Continuous light comes in two major choices, tungsten and high CRI fluorescent (kino-flo) As mentioned, tungsten can be low cost (home depot, ebay) or high cost (new, modifiers, barndoors, fresnels) All of them have the disadvantage of generating a fair to large amount of heat and they can indeed be uncomfortable to the model and pose danger in the proximity of combustible materials. Major advantage is that it's a bit easier to see where you are going with the lighting. Tungsten lighting does indeed required good WB management of the camera. Continuous fluorescent a la Kino-Flo (relatively expensive) with high CRI tubes is often seen in use for video but still photographers also use it. (I use both 3200K and 6500K tubes in a wall-o-lite) Great for diffuse light, window light replacement as mentioned by other posters. Cool light (for the model). Does require good knowledge of WB'cing the camera as the green spike is somewhat temperature dependent. Kino-Flo fixtures have been designed for it. For OTS fluorescent tubes and bulbs, well, you're on you own trying to get good quality light out of them. (YMMV) Strobes are versatile, large range of modifiers around. High color accuracy, high CRI and a wide range of power ranges around. Capable of freezing motion, something continuous lighting cannot do. Cool experience for the model and less objectionable to the model if he/she has to face the light directly ... can be a real pain to look into a bright light for prolonged amount of time. The learning curve for strobes is a bit steeper and yes, you can spend a fortune on it but you don't have too. Used equipment goes a long way and there are lower cost alternatives on the market. Again, YMMV. I find myself using all of the above, depends on the job. Rudi A. Jan 04 08 01:46 pm Link PhotosbyChuck wrote: Quoted for truth. Watt Seconds only measures how much juice it uses, and is used as a rough measure for how much light you will be getting out of your strobes from one model in a given brand to another. Jan 04 08 01:51 pm Link Much of the decision is based on your technique. Low ISO, quick model = flash higher ISO, slow model = hot lights Ice cream = flash Two 1000W lights at 7/8 feet at ISO 64-100 is about 1/60 f5.6 (or 1/125 f4). For portraits, f5.6 is a narrow depth of field; for full length standing - maybe. You would have to be at ISO 200 or 400 to make that work for portraits. Where my standard setup with 500WS flash with umbrella at 5-6 feet ISO 64-100 is f11 and I don't have to worry about movement blur. Jan 04 08 02:58 pm Link Thank you all. I have a much better understanding of continuous vs strobe lights, there capabilities, etc. However, I still would like to hear more of your thoughts and techniques on both continuous lighting and strobes. I'm sure there's plenty people out there who are for continuous and against strobes... or for strobes and against continuous... So feel free to post your experiences/reasons for using/not using which  Jan 04 08 03:20 pm Link Everyone here pretty much has the same answers, so I wanted to throw out something a bit different - food for thought... I have both strobes and hotlights, speedotrons force 10 and 5's, and Lowell DP 1000 watt hot light. The hot light I would not use it as a main, its to damn hot!!!! but what I use it for, depending on the shoot, I may use it for some accent lighting or have it aimed behind the model but in front of the background... Hotlights can add some warmer colors to your shots, also its good to help you lock in your focus, or to accent some other part of the scene..its good for different things. but if I had to choose one or the other, it would be strobes...hotlights are just one of those small nice things to add if you can. Jan 04 08 03:32 pm Link Photography is the recording of light. Most photographers are too wrapped up in IS lenses and megapixels. Without light, you have nothing. The quantity of light, the quality of the light and your ability to control it, is where most photographers should spend a greater percentage of their money. I'm not talking Elinchrome or ProFoto lights, but I ain't talking Alien Bees either. Those all work though. If you get yourself some good Photogenic, Norman, or White Lightning strobes, you'll never regret it. Buy 'em used on Ebay. You won't like continuous lights...most likely....which is why there should be a ton of those on Ebay. Jan 04 08 04:22 pm Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: Thank you ! I was doing a little research on the Arri L7-C LED and found this. Mar 15 13 06:37 am Link HottShotz wrote: Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Mar 15 13 06:58 am Link PhotosbyChuck wrote: +1 exactly, not all light sources put out the same amount of light. This is only comparing constant light, its still not the same as strobes as they are measured in w/s not watts - different things Mar 15 13 07:07 am Link The 'hot' thing is rather overdone. How many film or tv actors were ever fried? Yes, you need lots of watts for continuous, but once you've got that power at your disposal then you have the flexibility to choose which light source is more suitable for the job in hand. Mar 15 13 07:17 am Link Small thought, High wattage tungsten/halogen lights used in low rent soft-boxes significantly tests the flash point of certain polymers and fabrics. After time, one can have a rather large "candle" effect, not entirely on the shoot schedule or story boards. It does, however, add excitement to a boring day. Just say'n. Mar 15 13 07:24 am Link why is everyone posting in a 5 year old thread? nothing new has happened. hot lights are still hot. strobes are still strobey Mar 15 13 07:30 am Link Dinosaur thread. Side note: Continuous lighting doesn't just mean hot lights. Cool lights (i.e. CFL and LED lights) are continuous, but are not hot. They have become more readily available since this thread was started, so I guess it's worth pointing out. Mar 15 13 07:49 am Link Andrea Acailawen wrote: Just think 5 years ago few photographers used Kinoflows, it was a video only sort of thing. Mar 15 13 08:03 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: Yup. A lot has changed in the last five years. Ah, how I love this industry! Mar 15 13 08:15 am Link . Mar 15 13 08:22 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: Andrea Acailawen wrote: We did a lighting workshop on Kinoflows in the old So. Cal. studio way back in 2004. The problem with them is cost. They serve a specific purpose and deliver a special kind of hot light. Even today they are expensive to buy. Mar 15 13 08:33 am Link |
