Continuous lighting...any good at all?

[Bend The Light]

I have the chance to get a pair of 125watt (625 watt equivalent ??) continuous lights. Stands and softboxes.

I already use 2 studio flash units with brollies, softbox etc. Would a pair of continuous lights be of ANY use to me, as background, or something like that? Any other use? Or just a waste of cash?

They want £50 for a set that goes for about £100 on FleaBay for new. Set hardly used...

Cheers

 

[cgipson1]

BTL.. that would be 125 watts per second (or 625 watts per second.. I guess) Say you are shooting at 1/100 of a second.. how much light are you getting?

 

[Bend The Light]

BTL.. that would be 125 watts per second (or 625 watts per second.. I guess) Say you are shooting at 1/100 of a second.. how much light are you getting?

Yes, I saw that post in another thread.

As I said, I already have the studio flash (x2) but for a few quid was curious if these could be useful in addition to the strobes. But maybe not.

Cheers.

 

[cgipson1]

BTL.. that would be 125 watts per second (or 625 watts per second.. I guess) Say you are shooting at 1/100 of a second.. how much light are you getting?

Yes, I saw that post in another thread.

As I said, I already have the studio flash (x2) but for a few quid was curious if these could be useful in addition to the strobes. But maybe not.

Cheers.

They might be ok for macro or still work. As in camera on a tripod... subject not alive.. longer shutter speeds and all that. But personally I wouldn't bother unless you have a specific need for them.

Noobs like continuous light because it is cheap.. and they think the advantage of seeing exactly what they are shooting is good... not realizing that our eyes and brain compensate for the low light, so it looks much brighter to us, than to the camera sensor. ( I am questioning the math in my example above.. was quoting someone else.... interesting subject.)

 

[Overread]

Outside of video I think the primary use of continuous lighting that I see is in product based shooting. Where the subject does not mind at all that its getting quite hot under the lights. Whereas for regular portrait shooting its easier to keep a cool subject under flash lighting as opposed to working with hotter continuous lights (though of course highpowered LED lights might be changing that a little - though I think you'd be spending a pretty high amount for them - most of the cheaper LED don't have the power)

 

[Bend The Light]

BTL.. that would be 125 watts per second (or 625 watts per second.. I guess) Say you are shooting at 1/100 of a second.. how much light are you getting?

Yes, I saw that post in another thread.

As I said, I already have the studio flash (x2) but for a few quid was curious if these could be useful in addition to the strobes. But maybe not.

Cheers.

They might be ok for macro or still work. As in camera on a tripod... subject not alive.. longer shutter speeds and all that. But personally I wouldn't bother unless you have a specific need for them.

Noobs like continuous light because it is cheap.. and they think the advantage of seeing exactly what they are shooting is good... not realizing that our eyes and brain compensate for the low light, so it looks much brighter to us, than to the camera sensor. ( I am questioning the math in my example above.. was quoting someone else.... interesting subject.)

Outside of video I think the primary use of continuous lighting that I see is in product based shooting. Where the subject does not mind at all that its getting quite hot under the lights. Whereas for regular portrait shooting its easier to keep a cool subject under flash lighting as opposed to working with hotter continuous lights (though of course highpowered LED lights might be changing that a little - though I think you'd be spending a pretty high amount for them - most of the cheaper LED don't have the power)

Thanks guys. I did wonder about product stuff. At the moment we have been in our studio for just over a week - we've been playing with various portrait style lighting set ups. in the future, we may have an interest in product. But for now I told them I'd pass on the lights - I would never have used them for portrait, I have the flash units for that...

 

[KmH]

They could be used on a background. Constant lights are ambient light. Mixing continuous light with strobed light may cause white balance issues.

If you want to know how much light you actually get from the new CFL's , look at how many lumens they produce, not the equivelent watts.

 

[Bend The Light]

They could be used on a background. Constant lights are ambient light. Mixing continuous light with strobed light may cause white balance issues.

If you want to know how much light you actually get from the new CFL's , look at how many lumens they produce, not the equivelent watts.

Am I right in thinking that I am usually raising my shutter speed to a max 1/250, but high enough to exclude ambient light? So unless I slow my shutter down, the continuous lights wouldn't help on the BG? This would obviously not work with kids running about, I suppose.

 

[KmH]

In so far as shutter speed controls the exposure af any ambient light in a scene. A background doesn't have to be the same exposure as your subject.

Constant lights are slow. For them to be useful for stills or video they have to produce a lot more power than strobes have to produce.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Continuous lights are HORRID. I played with some in a friend's studio. A million of those twisted up light bulbs and modifiers. Not cool but images CAN be captured =)

 

[Bend The Light]

Thanks folks. I have decided against them.