Studio lights - Strobes Vs Continuous lighting systems or Both?
Looking for pros and cons and feedback.
I am in the process of upgrading my studio lighting and i have had healthy debates with a few photographers that like one or the other.
so just looking for more feedback of what everyone else uses.
i have always used strobes
but would Love to hear what others use. since i am making the purchase i want others feedback since i dont plan to buy more for a while.
As a Hollywood lighting director (gaffer) for 12 years I can assure you that you want to stick with strobes for still photography. The only exception would be if you want to shoot video.
Hot lights don't have near the output intensity of a strobe burst (per watt), there are very few to no battery packs, and the electricity bill shoots up fast. If you go with hot lights, prepare to shoot wide open where your lens performs its worst, especially if you plan on softening the light or - God forbid - balance your tungsten hot lights to daylight kelvin with deep blue lighting gels that kill 2/3 of your hot (tungsten) lights' stop. Kinoflows (fourescents) are softer and can use daylight balanced bulbs but have very weak output compared to strobes.
For video/film, we have 10 ton trucks full of 2500 watt and up lights, (some tungsten, some daylight balanced) but they require heavy electric cable, a sizable generator, and a small team of electricians to run all the cable and manage all the lights. That's the only way we solve the problem of shooting faster than a f/2.8 at 1/50 of a second shutter speed at a decent ISO/ASA (125-500 ISO/ASA), especially when we are competing with real daylight spilling through a window, etc.
That said: All the shots in the "beauty" section of my MM profile were shot with 3200K kinoflow flourescents and (hot) tungsten lights in a dark room (no daylight spill to contaminate the lighting) because that's what I had access to borrow for free. Most shots were done at around an f/4, 1/60" at 400 ISO, but I was not completely happy with the results because I could not soften the lights as much with diffusion as I wanted to without loosing too much stop and underexposing.
The end result: I had to soften many of the shadows in photoshop, which was time and labor intensive. If I'd had access to strobes and been able to shoot with them, I would have slightly sharper images (because of superior lens performance) with less noise (because I could use a lower ISO) and softer shadows from the lighting than what's currently in my port.
I shoot with both, as there are advantages to both.. For hot lights I mainly use a Mole Richardson model 412 2K. It's the largest fresnel hot light with a common household plug.
One of the biggest advantages is that I don't have to wait for a strobe to recycle whan I'm shooting models that are moving from pose to pose. It also has a unique quality to the light that I love.
As for the shooting wide open part... I'll shoot wide open over anything else 90% of the time because it just looks so much better to have some shallower depth of field in the studio, where shooting with strobes give you a more sterile look.
Brooks Ayola wrote: I shoot almost everything wide open.. I guess I'm not getting the best quality out of my lenses.. LOL :-)
I'd give some blood to have some of your talent...
OP, go with strobes. Most major brands are fine. I use Calumet Travel lights
but the Alien Bee's are fine, Speedotron, Dyna-light, Norman and the wonderful
Profoto are good.
I still like stobes. Tungsten are too hot and the new fluorescents are great for WYSIWYG and they are cool but if you are not good at slow shutter speeds and shooting wide open avoid them. Happy shooting.
Nice shot, Brooks, but not what I would call particularly soft lighting. Farily harsh, actually, and not particularly even either... looks like that 2K was pretty close to the model and/or spotted in with fairly light diffusion.
Hot lights can work in many instances, but try that same shot as a full body shot outdoors during daylight hours, with your light balanaced to daylight kelvin temp and see if you get the same results.
I'm not saying hot lights can't be used for stills period, but you can get for more bang for the buck (watt) with strobes.
Sean Conrad Peacock wrote: Nice shot, Brooks, but not what I would call particularly soft lighting. Farily harsh, actually, and not particularly even either... looks like that 2K was pretty close to the model and/or spotted in with fairly light diffusion.
Hot lights can work in many instances, but try that same shot as a full body shot outdoors during daylight hours, with your light balanaced to daylight kelvin temp and see if you get the same results.
I'm not saying hot lights can't be used for stills period, but you can get for more bang for the buck (watt) with strobes.
Ha, well, you're using as an example a type of shot I've done maybe three or four times in twenty years, so I don't know if I'd use it to make a decision on what lights to buy.
If you think that's harsh, I don't know what to say. I rarely put any diffusion in front of the 2K at all. :-)
How about this then... My 2K cost me $150.00.
This is the 2K just bounced against the wall.. Is this soft enough?
The more you shoot, the more you'll come to appreciate light power.
There's a pretty big difference in using a light for a closeup portrait/head shot, and using a light to light a full body or a model and set.
As soon as you start getting into multiple light setups, hot lights start generating TONS of heat that can be really hard on a model on set for the shoot. Use tons of power, since they're on full all the time, too.
If it's all you've got, wow, use it, make it work. It's light!
But strobes are a better tool for still photography, given the option of using them.
But do the math -- 20 amp circuit will support about 4 400 watt strobes
20 amp if my math is somewhat right -- 2000 watts of hot lights. not enough for my style of lighting and 2000 watts of heat - great for winter -- not great for summer.
I use both!
Mostly use tungsten for accent or rim, and strobe/natural light for my main.
Tungsten is warmer and works well for hair/accent lighting, as well as background lighting.
Enjoy experimenting!
18+
http://modelmayhm-8.vo.llnwd.net/d1/pho … 23f2ad.jpg Model is standing in my front doorway, with my white truck in driveway reflecting light back at model as my main. Accent/hair light is Arri 1000 watt fresnel.
edit; I did use a reflector to pump light from the Arri at the back wall.
Shot at f2.8, wide open.
wynnesome wrote: The more you shoot, the more you'll come to appreciate light power.
There's a pretty big difference in using a light for a closeup portrait/head shot, and using a light to light a full body or a model and set.
As soon as you start getting into multiple light setups, hot lights start generating TONS of heat that can be really hard on a model on set for the shoot. Use tons of power, since they're on full all the time, too.
If it's all you've got, wow, use it, make it work. It's light!
But strobes are a better tool for still photography, given the option of using them.
To be fair, I use hot lights to light full length sets all the time. It's not hard to do, really. That being said, I do use strobe equipment too, but I prefer hot lights whe shooting people in most cases.
They are not as hot as people always tell you.. I've never had models complain about the heat coming off a 2K, but I might be doing it all wrong.
Thats simple for me... STROBES! Why, you ask? Because I dont know of one hot light that I can buy for cheap, pack up easily, take outside, power with a vagabond, and kick the suns ass.... With strobes this is easily possible.
Now I do own hot lights, but I only use them for video. They are too much of a hassle to use for still photography IMHO. They get really hot and cant be touched without gloves. I move my set ups too often during still shoots. That hot stuff would get my aggravated!
Brooks Ayola wrote: I shoot almost everything wide open.. I guess I'm not getting the best quality out of my lenses.. LOL :-)
That's exactly right. There are quite a few threads on the "sweet spot" and "sharpness" of lenses.
Just because you do it [shoot wide open], and get your desired images, doesn't mean you are getting the best _quality_ or _performance_ out of your _lenses_.
Just because you can drive from point A to point B with a dirty carburetor, clogged air filter, and gummed points, doesn't mean you are getting the best _PERFORMANCE_ out of your car.
Just because it _can_ be done, doesn't mean it's good, right, or best in that situation, or even any situation, and especially in EVERY situation.
Lorin Edmonds wrote: Hot lights are nice for many situations.
But do the math -- 20 amp circuit will support about 4 400 watt strobes
20 amp if my math is somewhat right -- 2000 watts of hot lights. not enough for my style of lighting and 2000 watts of heat - great for winter -- not great for summer.
But another factor has to be taken into account. The power of your air conditioning has to equal or be greater than the power of your lights. So a 2k lamp requires 4k of total power. Use three of them and you're up to 12k.
Lorin Edmonds wrote: Hot lights are nice for many situations.
But do the math -- 20 amp circuit will support about 4 400 watt strobes
20 amp if my math is somewhat right -- 2000 watts of hot lights. not enough for my style of lighting and 2000 watts of heat - great for winter -- not great for summer.
That's what large AMPERAGE Power feeds, cam locks & breakout boxes are for, this equipment is required to use a lot of hot lights (Tungsten or HMI) Kino's are pretty fuel efficient as well as the new LitePanels.
We have 1000 amps in the photo studio and most of our stages have between 4 and 8 thousand amps.
That's exactly right. There are quite a few threads on the "sweet spot" and "sharpness" of lenses.
Just because you do it [shoot wide open], and get your desired images, doesn't mean you are getting the best _quality_ or _performance_ out of your _lenses_.
Just because you can drive from point A to point B with a dirty carburetor, clogged air filter, and gummed points, doesn't mean you are getting the best _PERFORMANCE_ out of your car.
Just because it _can_ be done, doesn't mean it's good, right, or best in that situation, or even any situation, and especially in EVERY situation.
BodyartBabes wrote: Just because you can drive from point A to point B with a dirty carburetor, clogged air filter, and gummed points, doesn't mean you are getting the best _PERFORMANCE_ out of your car.
Just because it _can_ be done, doesn't mean it's good, right, or best in that situation, or even any situation, and especially in EVERY situation.
That's exactly right. There are quite a few threads on the "sweet spot" and "sharpness" of lenses.
Scott
Hey Scott... Can you point me to some of these threads? I really need to learn more about lens performance so I can take better pictures for my clients. They've been using scientific measuring devices to determine if the shots I do are of optimal sharpness for each given lens I use.
I don't see any major cons for either but it depends on location and subject matter. If using continuous light it would be tough to shoot away from a studio without a generator of some sort and harder to freeze action. Continuous lights are great for the 'WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET' effect but most strobes have modeling lights that guide you in that area (not exact to the strobes power but it's a guide). I use strobes, tungsten and daylight balanced CFLs which I use to construct my own light fixtures. Budget is also another key point to bring up because you can start cheap with continuous lights and slowly build to afford more expensive strobes. Light is light. it's up to you to find ways to modify it. We have already gotten past the major humps of dealing with lights of different temps. and we now have custom white balance settings on our cameras so the rest is about how you shape that light, what you are shooting (I wouldn't shoot ice cream with hot tungsten bulbs) and where you are shooting.
ImageGenic wrote: Watch this poorly made and boring video. About 1/3 way through, he explains the reason to use strobes vs. constant lighting or hot lights.
I'm sorry to say but that video didn't really give a true reason to not use continuous light. Yes most strobes are going to output more light than continuous light sources but you wouldn't need that much for portraits anyway. You can also simply expose differently not to mention that there are companies making continuous light set ups with CFL where one head is equal to 500 Watts and more with little to no heat. Don't forget about cost either, for a person with little money, continuous light sources may be a good way to start. It is not more difficult to use either. Quite the opposite because what you see is what you get.
Pro's:
They are nice and warm in a cold studio. (great in the winter, sucks in the sumer)
Con's:
It's harder to eyes open when looking at them so you will get a higher percentage of outtakes.
Hmmm... You must have especially sensitive eyes, because I never have that issue. Like someone mentioned in another recent thread about this... They have been using them on movies sets forever... Do you ever see actors squinting or looking like they are bothered by the bright lights? Your eeyes should adjust to them, just like they do when you're out in the sun... Which is MUCH brighter, by the way.
I use hot lights. I don't care what everyone says about them. I love them. Every single thing in my port was shot with them. But I have the hands of a sniper and can hand hold a camera perfectly still at 1/30th.
Laura Dark Photography wrote: I use hot lights. I don't care what everyone says about them. I love them. Every single thing in my port was shot with them. But I have the hands of a sniper and can hand hold a camera perfectly still at 1/30th.
Now wait just a minute... According to someone in this thread, you should have difficulty lighting full lengths and modes on sets with continuous lighting! You must be cheating! :-)
Laura Dark Photography wrote: I use hot lights. I don't care what everyone says about them. I love them. Every single thing in my port was shot with them. But I have the hands of a sniper and can hand hold a camera perfectly still at 1/30th.
Funny thing is that once you have your final image, most people wont know whether it was shot with strobes or continuous so use what work for you and the situation. Nice portfolio by the way.
As a Hollywood lighting director (gaffer) for 12 years I can assure you that you want to stick with strobes for still photography. The only exception would be if you want to shoot video.
I would agree with everything you said, except for shooting wide open. I never shoot above F2.8 and my shots are okay Id like to think.
as for Strobes VS Hotlights, Strobes are very much a better choice for Portrait work or travel work. But I only use hotlights for my product work, It depends on what works for you, and what your budget is like.
you can buy some super cheap hotlights at your local hardware store and rent strobes from your camera store. Give them both a go, and see what you like more.
JessieJames Photography wrote: Studio lights - Strobes Vs Continuous lighting systems or Both?
Looking for pros and cons and feedback.
Personally, I mostly work with strobes. Much of my work happens at studios or house locations. Regarding house locations: I don't want to be lugging around heavy tungsten gear, the grip equip necessary to support it, competing with daylight coming thru windows and such, constantly blowing circuit breakers, etc. Yeah, I could shoot with a single 2k with a fresnel if that were the style I was looking for--and I have done so a few times for my own, personal shit--but my clients wouldn't be happy if that's what I were regularly doing. That's one reason why the VAST majority of pro shooters don't use tungsten as their regular lighting. I've also shot on sets mixing tungsten and strobes but that's a pain, dragging the shutter, shooting wide-open, shooting on sticks, high ISOs and all that.
Until a few years ago, I had my own studio. It was well-equipped with strobes as well as continuous. I shot both stills and video in my studio. I rarely shot stills with tungsten even tho I had a fair amount of it available.
Kinos or any fluorescent sources, IMO, are the worst for stills. The light has a very short throw and they are flat and boring.
I've shot with HMIs and that can be fun, yielding interesting results. But I don't own any HMIs. They're very pricey and aren't (nearly) as maintenance free as tungsten or strobes trend to be.
Personally, I'd suggest sticking with strobes. But maybe that's just me? You can certainly do good work with tungsten. Guys like George Hurrell worked exclusively with it. But then, old George didn't have much choice. That's pretty much all that was available back in his day.
EDIT: Here's a shot from 4 or 5 years ago using only tungsten lighting. I was trying to mimic a retro/vintage style for the portrait. BTW, I could have produced exactly the same image with strobes... probably easier.
There was a trend for Kino flo's in fashion in the late 90s until about 2002.
Now most is done with flash, some use HMI or tungsten.
It is a heck of a lot easier with digital in different lighting than the film days.
I use flash, but sometimes mix daylight in there. I also have flash heads with 650 watt modelling lights which are pretty darn good for contone light too.
So depends on what style you like the most, how much you want to spend, how much power supply you have.
Peter Lindberg shoots mostly HMI or Tungsten, Sarah Moon too, yet so many shoot flash.
Studio shots with a lot of depth of field are almost always easier with flash, and free held too.
The pros and cons have been discussed so I will display a shot in my port shot with hot lights. I work in the television industry as a News Photographer so I have hot lights available for free. Some day I will get studio flash but for now this is what I have to work with.
Funny thing is that once you have your final image, most people wont know whether it was shot with strobes or continuous so use what work for you and the situation. Nice portfolio by the way.
Darcsun Imaging wrote: Funny thing is that once you have your final image, most people wont know whether it was shot with strobes or continuous so use what work for you and the situation. Nice portfolio by the way.
Laura Dark Photography wrote: Thank you!!!!!
They might not know how or with what many of those images were lit, leastwise, when they're in their "final" stage. But, considering the limitations of continuous light for still photography, there are pics that many will know were NOT lit with continuous artificial light.
If continuous works for you, your workflow, and your style, stick with it I guess. But it has limitations. Notable production limitations. I'll agree the more a final image is photoshop-driven, the less it matters. Conversely, the less post-prod, the more it might matter.
