continuous lighting

[Vtec44]

I considered my lighting style more cinematic, and that it's almost always under exposed when compare to traditional studio lighting style.

 

[Braineack]

@Buckster, how can you disagree with a question?

 

[pixmedic]

We do mostly indoor formal portraits. Anywhere from 2 to 4 speedlights. 43 inch brollys and 40 inch softbox umbrellas are what I normally use.
I have a few shot with regular 36 inch shoot through umbrellas, but the brollys are my favorites.
I like speedlights over studio lighting because of the portability.

Continuous lighting gives you the advantage of "seeing" the light change as you make adjustments, but strobes stop motion and require less power to get the same exposure.

 

[Buckster]

@Buckster, how can you disagree with a question?

1st, because your question was already answered earlier in the thread, and it was addressed to you so that you wouldn't miss it.

2nd, as someone who wants to pretend to be a knowledgeable photographer on this forum, you should ALREADY know the variety of viable answers to the question you asked.

3rd, because it wasn't a serious question in the first place. It was a snarky question that was posed to actually act as a snarky (yet ignorant) statement.

 

[Braineack]

your answer wasn't great, to be honest. and you missed MY point completely and focused on trying to be an internet crusader trying to rid the internet of snarkiness.

In that video he has to shoot at f/2.8, 1/60sec, and ISO 500 coupled with the fact that the shot is underexposed (purposefully or not--I'm going with not, based on his camera settings and final images). That's like the perfect argument against continuous lights. What happens when I want to shoot at f/11? (there's that damn question again) Those 30 lumens strip lights will be worthless.

If we turn on a room light, as you suggest, then the shot is completely ruined as you won't get that dark background. Plus that alone would probably overpower the strip lights in general and render them useless.

And buying more strip lights or bringing in more lamps is just mixing color temps and causes all sorts of other issues and sorta defeats the purpose.

As far as ISO, I shoot a D600 (one of Nikon's best low-light sensors) and wouldn't want to shoot portraits at ISO 1600, actually it would be closer to 12,500 since I'd want to shoot at f/8 or f/11. Even at f/11 on my 200mm most portraits aren't completely in focus--my avatar for example, was shot at f/8 and my ears aren't in focus.

That that doesn't even touch shooting at 1/60, so a tripod would be a must and you'd have to make sure your subject stays very still. Plus you want ever be able to freeze any sort of movement. Nor does it touch on them being hard to mount on your camera if you wanna shoot in any other situation; they just lack any versatility.

I absolutely agree that being able to see how the lights are lighting the subject in real time is great; I never disputed that, which was your point.

As someone pretending to be knowledgeable and after just running 3 circles around my cat, so my point of view is pretty damn valid--agree with it or not.

 

[photoguy99]

So what do we take away from this?

That the guys who threw together a $50 DIY continuous lighting kit did NOT after all produce a universal lighting system, suitable for shooting at f/11 with a 200mm, or for shooting rocket launches, or whatever? Because that's not really a surprise.

That continuous lighting is unusable and stupid? Because that's going to come as a surprise to some really very successful photographers.

Is there, in short, a point in here someplace? Or is it just snarking?

 

[AKUK]

I think what is being lost now amongst all the benefits and drawbacks to using both systems, is the intended purpose the OP laid out initially. Yes, flash has action stopping ability that continous light doesn't. It has a broader power output than CFL or LED. However, the OP isn't looking for an all encompassing lighting solution for every and all subjects and setups. What she is looking for is a lighting solution to a very specific subject matter. That is newborn babies.

Tiny little individuals that lack virtually all motorskills and are asleep the vast majority of the time anyway. The OP isn't going to need action stopping power. It's a newborn baby, not a water-filled balloon we're going to stick with a needle. The babies won't be moving. Even if the child is awake, they tend to hold their arms into their chests anyway. A lot of newborn photography is shot at shallow depths of field too because it adds to that dream-like quality that many parents like in a photographers work, so again, I don't think shooting at f/11 is going to be a prerequiste of the system. Depending on the lens used, that depth of field also may not be required.

The OP has also stated she doesn't want to use flash as it can disturb and upset a baby - something you do not want happening during a shoot, which I can attest to personally. So while we can bang on about the best lighting systems available based upon our own requirements, we aren't helping the original poster if the answers aren't geared specifically to her requirements.

 

[Braineack]

So what do we take away from this?

that continuous lighting setups have both pros and cons that should be considered before investing in.

 

[Vtec44]

So while we can bang on about the best lighting systems available based upon our own requirements, we aren't helping the original poster if the answers aren't geared specifically to her requirements.

Welcome to TPF! Most conversation on this forum will end up with the same people arguing

 

[AKUK]

So while we can bang on about the best lighting systems available based upon our own requirements, we aren't helping the original poster if the answers aren't geared specifically to her requirements.

Welcome to TPF! Most conversation on this forum will end up with the same people arguing

I don't think I've ever been on a forum that didn't have the same, haha!

 

[Braineack]

what's the point of the internet if we can't argue about thing, even stuff we agree on?

 

[pixmedic]

what's the point of the internet if we can't argue about thing, even stuff we agree on?

Porn

 

[AKUK]

Well I've heard that it's to share collective knowledge and communicate, although we all know its primary function has always been to look at naughty pictures and videos.

 

[unpopular]

Only continuous lighting I would consider are made by Arri

Arri has a reputation for making great fresnels, no doubt, but they're not really known outside of the "can" style of lighting for film and television. I've used Arri quartz lamps, they're solid, but honestly I don't totally understand what makes them so special.

The lens movement is primative and clunky, there is no ballast with quartz so it's pretty much just a can with a bulb in it and a spring clip to hold in screens with a lens plopped in front.

Maybe other brands suck REALLY bad, I don't know, and I'm sure their ballasted lamps like the big HMIs and the new high wattage LED cans are superior with more to go wrong. But none of this is really appropriate for baby photography.

At this price point, Lowell is better known for FL and LED anyway.

 

[unpopular]

Well I've heard that it's to share collective knowledge and communicate, although we all know its primary function has always been to look at naughty pictures and videos.

That's pretty much been my experience since I was 12 ... Gophernet nudies ... those were the days.