Right Poes Photography wrote:
I kept my continuous for pets and babies.

Is that because of the whole "flash damages their poor little eyes" myth?

Kaouthia wrote:

I've got a Bowens light next to me right here that's 3000Ws.  What's brighter?  Bear in mind mine puts that out in about 1/2000th of a second.

1000 Watts continuous is NOT as powerful as 1000 Watt Seconds flash.

1000 Ws (or Joules to use the correct term) in a flash lasting typically 1/1000th of a second is actually a MILLION Watts. Your 3000Ws units with 1/2,000ths duration are 6 megaWatts - considerably brighter than a CFL light which claims to be 1,000 W tungsten equivalent but barely puts out half of that!

kevinLi wrote:
I have started to warm to the idea of continuous light.

I suppose the humour in that was unconscious. You will certainly "warm to" 5k lights at short distances!

Kaouthia wrote:
1000 Watts continuous is NOT as powerful as 1000 Watt Seconds flash.

This is true, unless your shutter speed is 1 second. A 1000-watt/second flash puts out the same amount of light with one pop as a 1,000-watt incandescent light puts out in one second. If your shutter speed is 1/250 second, you'd need 250 1,000-watt bulbs - or one 250,000 watt bulb.

Kaouthia wrote:
High ISO, slow shutters, wide apertures, non moving subjects and tripods.

Not to mention... heat - and higher electric bills (if you leave them on for the entire shoot).

As far as I'm concerned, the only advantage to using tunsgen for still photography is that it helps you to replicate some genres such as Old Hollywood glamour lighting.

I shot this photo with a 2,000-watt Mole-Richardson 2k focusing floodlight (a floodlight that can be focused to simulate a spotlight - but the light is not nearly as directional as it is with a spotlight with a fresnel lens) and three 500-watt fresnel spotlights. ISO 1,000, 1/200 second, f/5.



The light pattern created with the 2'x3' wooden cuculoris (or cucoloris or cucaloris, pick your spelling) could have been simulated with a 7-inch reflector and a metal Rosco or Tallyn "pattern" (cookie, scrim, gobo - they all apply in this case).

However, in order to make sure that the light pattern created on the model's face by the cookie was pleasing, the cookie was adjusted after the model was posed and before each shot by an assistant, who's actually a much better photographer than I am. Since I was sitting on the floor 20-30 feet away and couldn't see the light pattern on her face in the viewfinder, he'd shout "good light" when he had the cookie positioned.

You can get strobe spotlights - or accessories such as the F-16 Turbo Spot (which has been replaced by the F-16 Turbo Spot Plus) for Photogenic or Paul C. Buff’s strobes from Tallyn’s. But the larger wooden cookie looks more like the Old Hollywood photos. The metal cookies in smaller reflectors come off as being a bit “sharp,” while the larger cookie gives a more feathered look.

http://www.tallyns.com/tpp/amazing/item … =0&Tp=&Bc=

As far as I know, only a few manufacturers made spotlight heads. The only ones I know of were made for pack-and-head systems, and the best one was made by Balcar.

Camerosity wrote:
This is true, unless your shutter speed is 1 second. A 1000-watt/second flash puts out the same amount of light with one pop as a 1,000-watt incandescent light puts out in one second.

Yup, except that a 1000Ws flash does it in about 1/1000th of the time or less.

Camerosity wrote:
If your shutter speed is 1/250 second, you'd need 250 1,000-watt bulbs - or one 250,000 watt bulb.

And if your flash duration is 1/1000th of a second, you'd need a thousand of them to be able to get your shutter speed fast enough to freeze movement in the same way.

The fact that you need more of them or need to open up your shutter 8 stops (1/250th to 1 second) to get the same EV demonstrates that they're not as powerful.

WMcK wrote:

I suppose the humour in that was unconscious. You will certainly "warm to" 5k lights at short distances!

Hehe. I loled.

I think you're more likely to melt than warm. 5k HMI = gas mark 6.

intense_puppy wrote:

Hehe. I loled.

I think you're more likely to melt than warm. 5k HMI = gas mark 6.

You're not kidding 5K HMI is a lot of light!!!!

In studio I wouldn't want to go over 2.5K HMI as it is just too much power, and heat, weight etc. Already with my 1.2K they are quite large. Only when it's sunny and there is direct sun is 1.2K not enough.

Photography by Riddell wrote:
The only real advantages are.

3. Specialist reproduction of some early styles of photography that originally used large, huge movie hotlights.

4. And maybe sometimes (but not always) they are used for large product photography.

Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk

Time-related issues, such as motion blur, are much easier/practical with continuously lighting. There are other real reasons as well.

Camerosity wrote:
... A 1000-watt/second flash puts out the same amount of light with one pop as a 1,000-watt incandescent light puts out in one second...

Not true.  Watts are a measure of power, not light.

A more correct statement would be: A 1000-watt/second dissipates the same amount of power with one pop as a 1,000-watt incandescent light puts out in one second.

Incandescent lights are notoriously inefficient.  Most of that power goes to directly to heat.  If you use a more efficient technology then you get more light.  For instance 100W of compact fluorescent generally puts out about 4 times as much light as a traditional 100W incandescent (this is why 25W compact fluorescents  are sold as replacements for 100W incandescents).

If the discussion is limited to one technology (incandescent, compact fluorescent, Monolight) then comparing power levels gives a reasonable estimate of the relative light levels.  Once you include multiple technologies, comparing power levels isn't useful for predicting relative light output.


If you want to do useful comparisons across multiple technologies, you need to compare the lumen outputs

Camerosity wrote:
... A 1000-watt/second flash puts out the same amount of light with one pop as a 1,000-watt incandescent light puts out in one second...

Michael Fryd wrote:
Not true.  Watts are a measure of power, not light.

A more correct statement would be: A 1000-watt/second dissipates the same amount of power with one pop as a 1,000-watt incandescent light puts out in one second.

Incandescent lights are notoriously inefficient.  Most of that power goes to directly to heat.  If you use a more efficient technology then you get more light.  For instance 100W of compact fluorescent generally puts out about 4 times as much light as a traditional 100W incandescent (this is why 25W compact fluorescents  are sold as replacements for 100W incandescents).

If the discussion is limited to one technology (incandescent, compact fluorescent, Monolight) then comparing power levels gives a reasonable estimate of the relative light levels.  Once you include multiple technologies, comparing power levels isn't useful for predicting relative light output.


If you want to do useful comparisons across multiple technologies, you need to compare the lumen outputs

You are correct. Point taken. I started to mention efficiency of reflectors, but efficiency of converting energy to light didn't occur to me.

Caveman Creations wrote:
I don't know that I could go without my strobes anymore. The only "continuous" light I like or use, anymore............. is the sun. Anything else, I want to "pop"!

+1

Kaouthia wrote:

Is that because of the whole "flash damages their poor little eyes" myth?

I hadn't heard about that, its warm and well, continuous.

Kaouthia wrote:

Is that because of the whole "flash damages their poor little eyes" myth?

I doubt it - probably more about the flash startles them.

Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
...yup, scared baby flash syndrome is a known and proven fact...look at this poor rugrat...move now to support the ban on the use of strobes on our little ones...

Proven where?  Evidence?

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?d= … =367698&p=

Kaouthia wrote:
Proven where?  Evidence?

...mate...was just a bit of Aussie humour ...and you missed it, by that much

Glenn Hall - Fine Art wrote:
...mate...was just a bit of Aussie humour ...and you missed it, by that much

Kaouthia wrote:

Then, by your own argument, it's not as powerful.  Because a 1000Ws flash can put it out in a thousandth of the time or less.

What you've just said is "It's exactly as powerful, if you slow down your shutter by 10 stops".

You are proving his point!!!!   Your compairison to watts and watts second need some fine tuning....you might consider checking your reference material.

Good Luck

Brian Ziff wrote:
Everything that's been listed here as a "drawback" to continuous lighting is a benefit to me.

I use both strobes and hot lights and let the picture I'm trying to shoot dictate the appropriate lighting.

+1 .. Use the tool that works for the image

Kansas City Media Group wrote:
You are proving his point!!!!   Your compairison to watts and watts second need some fine tuning....you might consider checking your reference material.

How? Having to slow your shutter speed down by 8-10 stops proves that it's not letting in as much light in the same amount of time.

SoCo n Lime wrote:

strobes are brighter? cant agree there is a full range of bulbs upto 1000w equivs and beyond.. energy bulbs are their wattage X5

lots of heat? nope sorry.. they run way cooler

heat resistant? you need super heat resistant soft boxes on bowen and equaivs just for the modeling light alone. contininous arr completly different

day light bulbs are consistent my friend.. you couldn't tell the difference between daylight and this bulbs i use

in my experience heat from modelling lights burns soft boxes from white to yellow causing colors issues with strobes over time

Not making sense to me at all, and I did start out with continous.
Heat is a factor, modifiers will burn, and models will sweat!


J.

JohnEnger wrote:
..........I did start out with continous.
Heat is a factor, modifiers will burn, and models will sweat!

High wattage Tungsten lights are not the only type of continuous lighting available. I have more of a heat problem if I use the modelling lights on my monoblocs for a long time than from my continuous lights. I don't have a heat problem from my HMI lights and there is not a heat problem with fluourescents,

veypurr wrote:
What is your opinion?

In what situation's are continuous better or comprobable to strobe?

What are the drawbacks to continuous?

Most of the time this question turns into a wreck. This is better than what you'd get on Photo.net. There are some good points on both sides of the argument in this thread though.

My personal preference is continuous lighting (the sun & tungsten) but I use flash as well from time to time. Whatever you choose don't forget your imagination also plays a role.

FBY1K

Michael Fryd wrote:
If you want to do useful comparisons across multiple technologies, you need to compare the lumen outputs

even when comparing strobe to strobe. Speedotron 1200ws is going to be a different amount of light (different f-stop) than the exact same 1200ws Profoto for example


-scott

scott lanes wrote:

even when comparing strobe to strobe. Speedotron 1200ws is going to be a different amount of light (different f-stop) than the exact same 1200ws Profoto for example


-scott

The amount of light supplied (lumens) does not exactly correspond to the exposure required (aperture).  Modifiers affect the distribution of the light, and can absorb some of it before it reaches the subject.

The obvious demonstration of this is that if you leave your monolight's settings the same, and remove the reflector, you will need a larger aperture to maintain the same exposure.  It's not that the monolight is producing less light without the reflector, it's that less of the produced light is reaching your subject.


Watt-seconds (or Joules) is a measure of the amount of power stored in the flash.

We measure the amount of light produced by the flash in Lumens.

We use the "Guide Number" to indicate how much of that light falls on the subject.  Obviously, the manufacturer has some leeway with Guide Numbers.  Use a narrow reflector, and you get more light on a smaller subject.  Use a wide reflector and you get less light per square inch, but over more square inches.

Making exact comparisons is far more complicated then it should be.

JohnEnger wrote:
Not making sense to me at all, and I did start out with continous.
Heat is a factor, modifiers will burn, and models will sweat!

I wont get the time back in my life to answer all the continuos basher's and a post about its for newbies when they start out. ive used bowens units and quads for a decade and now prefer my setup continuous especially on location .. (todays technology wasn't around 5 years ago in both light options and camera's) they run super cool, they are not heavy (the soft boxes and even the light stands are the heaviest items not the lights) having 6 lights and numerous more bulbs for switching out lamps and light fittings when its needed are a huge advantage

as for the post about basher's having a lack of imagination that was probably the best reply ive read. its not what you have.. it what you do with it that counts