continuous lighting

I haven't really thought too much about LED, are they better than cfls?

In theory they would seem attractive. In practice you'd have to talk to someone who knows first hand. I've only use flash and quartz.

I do know that LEDs are capable of dumping huge amounts of light. High end units are used in the film industry, even for slow motion work, but, I don't know how more affordable units would compare performance-wise and these units can cost several thousand dollars. Do you have any kind of budget in mind?

Some nice things about LED is that they're pretty much indestructible, some units can easily run on batteries and they generate very, very little heat.
 
The great thing for those just starting on their journey to learn how to light, continuous lighting or lights with modeling lamps (again, continuous lighting) allows them to see how the light and shadow shape as they set it up and move it around.

It can take a while to learn how to envision what it will do from firing speedlights and chimping or, worse reviewing shots later, after forgetting exactly how the light(s) and modifiers were set up and what was dialed in them.

Here's a recent Phlearn video that the OP may find helpful or at least interesting:

Light an Amazing Portrait with a low cost DIY Lighting Kit
 
If you are shooting at f1.8 + at least 400 or 800 ISO, continuous lighting works well enough.

Most typical studio shots are at a higher aperture such as f/5.6 or greater.
If you shoot exclusively at f/1.8 and fairly close up, expect images to be soft and your DOF to suffer (ie, out of focus issues). There's plenty of threads where people shoot at f/1.8 because they have it for low light. It helps in gathering light, but also affects the Depth of Field. So be careful using it and know how.

Continuous lighting does not stop movement. A Speedlight/strobe will stop movement. So you have to keep shutter fairly fast at say 1/125 or faster with continuous. If you get to slower speeds then expect movement (subject AND photographer) and soft photos from that movement.

I wouldn't be scared of off camera flash. You're only scare because you haven't tried or learned about it. Yongnuo is a very inexpensive way of getting into it.
 
I use continuous light all the time for video and while they are great for lighting everything else about them sucks. They are big, heavy, get very hot, and need power sources.
 
Tbh off camera flash scares me
There's nothing to be afraid of, unless it is spending money on CFL lights that you will end up not using.

Just start in and learn it.
 

1/60 sec
iso 500
f/2.8

and it's still underexposed.

:thumbno:

if you were shooting the 18-55 3.5-5.6 (at 55mm), you'd need to shoot at 1/60, 5.6, iso ~1600..
Or add more light, like the ambient light that would usually be in the room, but wasn't present in the video example, or with a few more light sticks, or even with some regular lamps, or brighten it a bit in post. And ISO 1600 on most modern cameras, even the lower end ones, is usually fine.

But the thing is, you missed the actual point of how shooting with continuous light can be helpful to those who are learning about light.

The video was just an example, and Aaron Nace can run circles around you when it comes to lighting, shooting and producing great photos, so you might want to be careful where you're sticking that thumb.
 
That's why I want to try it because I think it will help me learn about lighting and plus I think the flash would disturb a sleeping baby,
 
I forgot to mention that I also own a couple of Lencarta LED 1000's, which I review on the website. These are LED light units that look similar to a monolight but have the ability to use Bowens S modifiers. The power output is controllable via remote as well as on the light itself. The ability to use modifiers though is a huge bonus and something that the vast majority of continuous lighting systems don't offer. They also stay cool too, making them much safer to use around infants.
 
I have to say that I am always amused when someone says "underexposed" on a shot that's clearly intended to be dark. My pro-tip of the day: look at the image, not the histogram.
 
I have to say that I am always amused when someone says "underexposed" on a shot that's clearly intended to be dark. My pro-tip of the day: look at the image, not the histogram.

glad I could assume you today.

pro-tip of the day: with those camera settings resulting in such a dark image, what would the photographer wanting to shoot at f/8.0 as well as a brighter image do? please answer while making sure to ignore the point I was bringing up.
 
Last edited:
I have to say that I am always amused when someone says "underexposed" on a shot that's clearly intended to be dark. My pro-tip of the day: look at the image, not the histogram.

Agreed. While it's important for newcomers to understand and aim for "correct exposure" whilst learning about photography and lighting, people shouldn't let that be the be-all-and-end-all of it. Artistic stamp should always trump it. If you look at a great deal of Jeremy Cowart's work of late, technically that is considerably underexposed but the images have their own quality as a result.

Ultimately, it all depends upon what you are trying to achieve with the final image. If you become bogged down with technical perfection and that is your sole focus, then you'll never expand beyond that point.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top