|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Flash or Continuous light?
I'm curious what do most photographers prefer? Flash or Continuous light? Aug 17 06 12:58 pm Link I have flash as well as continuous. I find I practically always use continuous. Aug 17 06 01:27 pm Link Didn't we just do this?????? Strobe light, it is cooler, it is daylight...it mixes well with window light, short duration..stops action, easy to get 2400 or 4800 w/s in a single head... light source, flexable... you get the idea.. Charlie Aug 17 06 01:37 pm Link I'm sure this question has come up in at least six-hundred and forty-three times in other threads. A long time ago I used continuous, then I sold them and bought strobes and never looked back. Aug 17 06 01:37 pm Link Both Aug 17 06 01:47 pm Link Light is light. What you do with it, is up to you! Aug 17 06 06:51 pm Link They are called Hot Lights for a reason... The the good thing about working with them is that you can see what is happening right away. On the other hand, after a few mins. under them you start to feel like an order of chicken nuggets. The only downside to strobes that I can think of is that it takes a few more minutes to setup and the initial investment is kinda stiff. Aug 17 06 07:02 pm Link EddiePhoto wrote: I use continuous lights 85% of the time. The only drawback is the heat. I had invested in some strobes and used them for a while but I like the control I have over my images using the "hot lights". Aug 18 06 08:30 am Link I use both.... I've shot in a number of fashion rental studios in NYC and the UK, and always check out what the really big guns are using...I'd say over half of them use continuous flourescents (Keno's) or HMI spots. Aug 18 06 08:42 am Link I use both.... I've shot in a number of fashion rental studios in NYC and the UK, and always check out what the really big guns are using...I'd say over half of them use continuous flourescents (Keno's) or HMI spots. Aug 18 06 08:42 am Link I started out with continous and quickly moved on to strobes. I think that the quality of light is much better. The image looks much more professional. With continous lighting the model gets hot and squints to much. With strobes the makeup lasts much longer also. Aug 18 06 01:13 pm Link Subtle Imagery wrote: This is silly! Aug 18 06 01:47 pm Link In my 40 plus years of being a photographer I have never seen anybody with one of those Alpa cameras on the street. I can say the same thing about those Rollei two and a quarter SLRs that I see in magazines. And now I read about photographers here in MM who boast about their Contax two and a quarters with incredibly fast lenses. What I am leading this too is that I have never ever seen one of those Swiss Braun studio flash units being used in a studio. I hear how people swear by their Profotos. A fashion photographer friend of mine used to love his Balcar but I found that it being French it was as flimsy as those Renaults of years back. I feel almost ashamed to admit that I shoot with a Dynalite M-800 that is now vintage. But Chip, in the previous post is right. It all has to do in how a photographer uses his light. But then the more expensive studio flash units offer the advantage of accurate and dependable repeatability. While my Dynalite is not a Profoto I am able to shoot 120 Ektachrome without having to resort to shooting three shots with half stop increments over and under the flashmeter setting. I have a really retentive friend who shoots Dynalites, too. He keeps track on how many flashes he gets out of them and trashes his flash tubes as soon as the colour temperature shifts. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that with those photographers shooting digital RAW , a good dependable and accurate studio flash unit would be a decided asset. I can say the same about my ancient to not so ancient three Norman 200 Bs. The feature I have always liked about Normans is that they will keep on shooting. Once they cannot get full power they quit. Good studio flash units with quartz modeling lights can always be used as pretty good hot lights. I have many times in the past. I would never buy one of those units that use normal light bulbs as modeling lights! Alexwh Aug 18 06 02:13 pm Link Chip Willis wrote: Word up Chipster... good call... Aug 18 06 02:20 pm Link I've taken good photographs using strobes, ambient light, photographic hot lights, fluorescent overhead strips, even a desk lamp and a shop light from Home Depot. Like Chip says, it's all in what you do with it. I prefer strobes, though, and find I work best with them. Probably just 'cause I'm not experienced and badass yet.  Aug 18 06 02:32 pm Link Aug 18 06 03:07 pm Link Sonar Advertising wrote: I have both studio strobes and hot lights ( 2-500 watt heads & 2- 1000 watt heads), but shoot 99% with strobes. During the warmer months, the hot lights make the studio uncomfortable and the strobes are easier for me to balance. Aug 18 06 03:11 pm Link i use all types of lighting depending on situation, effect desired, budget, logistics, etc. there's just so much more to the question than continuous vs. strobe otherwise noone would rationally choose to not see what they were shooting by simply looking in the viewfinder (or is anyone really happy with a modelling lamp?) Aug 18 06 03:16 pm Link lll wrote: You may be right about this constant comentary on the same subjects. But if you remove these from contention we are left with "Is it better to photograph a model when she is past her digestion?" or "Should cigarettes in photos be filter tipped or not? " Aug 18 06 03:16 pm Link alexwh wrote: Hey, I just learned my new thing for the day. Thanks Alex! Aug 18 06 03:38 pm Link |
