Laura Ann Photography wrote:
I much prefer flash if I'm shooting portraiture.

Continuous lights get way too hot, and if I'm hot, I can only imagine how uncomfortable the person posing for me must be.

Good point, they do make you moist after a while!

Pat Porter Photography wrote:

Good point, they do make you moist after a while!

I don't mind them so much if I'm shooting still life, but last time I locked myself into a studio trying to get a shot a particular way, I found myself laying on the floor at one point complaining about the heat.  Mind you, I had been in there for about 5 hours, but damn, it was sweltering.

Laura Ann Photography wrote:
I much prefer flash if I'm shooting portraiture.

Continuous lights get way too hot, and if I'm hot, I can only imagine how uncomfortable the person posing for me must be.

I could do with using continous lighting as the studio I work in is freezing at the best of times... We have a portable heater but that guzzles energy! Hitting two birds with one stone doesn't sound a bad idea.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
I was a filmmaker for over 10 years before I switched to photography, and having worked with both, I think if you can use a flash, it's better. It makes more pictures possible. We can't use them for cinema, unfortunately. Continuous lighting is highly inefficient both in terms of electrical energy expenditure and heat generation, when compared to flashes.

??  (the section I bolded)

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

(I've never shot using a continuous lighting setup (umbrellas, softboxes) but the improvements in daylight balanced CFL bulbs has gotten my curiosity.

Robert Asbury wrote:
I use a mix of both. usealy I don't have to much problems with it.

Curious, did you mean you use both at the same time?

I use flash for almost all my shoots,  however if Im doing shadowing work I use both hot and cool continuous lights, I fond for me its easier to control spill and get proper highlights.

PhotoSportNW wrote:
??  (the section I bolded)

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

(I've never shot using a continuous lighting setup (umbrellas, softboxes) but the improvements in daylight balanced CFL bulbs has gotten my curiosity.

I was referring to depth of field, exposure, and grain.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
I was referring to depth of field, exposure, and grain.

Thanks, I could interpret your comments in multiple ways so I was unsure which you meant and wanted to be positive about your intended meaning.

It sounds like you were going for strobe giving you more versatility and potentially a stronger light intensity to give you more options or better quality options....

as opposed to saying "it makes more pictures possible" meaning a higher quantity of photos within a certain time frame, which you could do with continuous lights since there would be no time spent waiting for a flash to recycle.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
I was a filmmaker for over 10 years before I switched to photography, and having worked with both, I think if you can use a flash, it's better. It makes more pictures possible. We can't use them for cinema, unfortunately. Continuous lighting is highly inefficient both in terms of electrical energy expenditure and heat generation, when compared to flashes.

Gotta give the movie guys credit ,what they do is incrediable ,shooting inside a studio is nothing compared to making a movie.

MinisterC  wrote:
Unlike other debates, this one is pretty settled among photographers.

Strobes are just more capable lights.

As others have expressed already, there is a firm place for continuous lighting, but strobes just have so much more power and control. If someone has only shot with continuous lighting, do youself a favor and get some strobes. They're neato.

What do you mean by control, exactly?

- Phen

Phen Mas wrote:

What do you mean by control, exactly?

- Phen

I meant versatile. My mistake. Strobes give you most of what constants do, plus more light, less heat and less electricity.

MinisterC  wrote:

I meant versatile. My mistake. Strobes give you most of what constants do, plus more light, less heat and less electricity.

It's no problem, I was just confused, because I saw someone else mention that as well... and I didn't get it.  As far as your heat problem not all continuous light sources give off heat  OR use tons of electricity. I think in a lot of cases strobes are cheaper to get off the ground than hi-end continuous systems.

-Phen

MinisterC  wrote:
Unlike other debates, this one is pretty settled among photographers.

Strobes are just more capable lights.

As others have expressed already, there is a firm place for continuous lighting, but strobes just have so much more power and control. If someone has only shot with continuous lighting, do youself a favor and get some strobes. They're neato.
__________________

HOWEVER, the greatest and most beautiful light is the constant Sun. So, I guess continuous is still superior.

I'm always intrigued by comments like this, because I made the same comments until I got my latest sets of continuous lights -- which don't get hot, don't use much more electricity than strobe, and begin to approximate the continuity of the sun.   This whole debate sort of reminds me of the debate among photographers a few years ago, when digital was just starting out:  at first, no one thought digital was anywhere equal to film, then a few thought digitial offered some advantages, then a lot did.  Unless you've used the more recent forms of continuous lighting, you can't really make a valid comparison.  It isn't a valid comparison to say "I've used tungsten, and my strobes are better."  It simply says you haven't used any of the new technologies.  No, a 1.6 megapixel Kodak DS260 isn't equivalent to Tri-X pan.  But what about a 1Ds Mark III?

At the same time, I agree that, for now, it takes more continuous lights to equal the luminance of strobes, and so it costs more as an initial investment.  It will be interesting to see where we are in a very few years, especially with the advent of superbright six element LED sources, which are expensive now but likely to drop in price as manufacturing and development costs are amortized.  Similar advances are being made with CF technology.  The future of continuous lighting will be interesting, but the present is better than a lot of photographers realize.