Light Type Question

[Mastov]

I do web design for my company but recently fell into the role of also taking product photos. I am not a photographer, so I have zero experience using lights. I've begun reading "Light Science and Magic" but I still have questions.
I have a few questions:

1)

Most people seem to recommend "strobe" lights over "continuous lights". I can understand using strobe lights for portraits of people so as to not blind them or cause heat discomfort, but strobes seems impractical for product photography. I've tethered my camera to the computer to see the view finder on the screen using a program called "Capture One". This allows me to see lighting adjustments in real time before I take the photo. So with "Continuous" lighting I can tweak the light as I'm watching the screen. But with "Strobe" lighting it seem's I cannot adjust the light in real time and get immediate feedback.

2)

This is related to (1). When I visit a place like BH Photo or Adoram, I see the break down between "strobe" and "continuous lights". Then within "strobe" and "continuous lights" there are a lot more options. I see the following break down:

"continuous" = LED, Tungsten, Fluorescent, HMI

"Strobe" = Monolight

If my understanding is correct "Tungsten" and "Monolight" are the two most common lights. "Tungsten" for "continuous" and "Monolight" for strobe. Most people prefer "Monolight" since it's not "hot".

LED is mostly used for film? The current consensus is that it's expensive and build quality is unpredictable. If LED technology is improved this would be favored over Tungsten.

HMI is used on big hollywood sets. There aren't any complaints, except that it's expensive so most photographers don't use it. Like LED most people would prefer this if they could afford it.

Fluorescent is cooler and uses less energy, but it doesn't give much light. For continuous lighting "Tungsten" is preferred over "Fluorescent".

Is my understanding correct? Or am I off base?

 

[KmH]

Flash is mostly valuable for people shots because it allows a shorter exposure time and allows controlling ambient light exposure separately from the flash exposure.
Most monolight flash units have a constant but lower power 'modeling light' that is used to set up the lighting.

But you're correct that constant lighting is very useful for non-animate subjects.

Monolights are a self contained type of flash unit that generally is more powerful than a camera hot shoe mounted flash unit.
Monolights generally are powered by AC (Alternating Current -a wall socket) while hot shoe flash units are powered by DC ( Direct Current, batteries)

There are also power supply and head flash unit systems that are modular. (See Speedotron).

 

[Mastov]

Thanks KmH,

So a monolight has both constant modeling light and a more powerful flash. My layman guess is that good photographer (which I am not) learns to estimate the amount of light needed for a shot based on the modeling light. They will take a photo, make an adjustment then take another photo. However, I'm assuming no one would actually use the "modeling" light as a primary constant light?

Is it fair to say there is no reason to use flash monolights for non-animate still life subjects? Is there any benefit?

I'm now leaning towards buying a set of continuous Tungsten lights.

 

[Derrel]

There are multiple factors that favor studio flash units (commonly called strobes, or studio strobes) over constant light sources for all types of work. Continuous lights are HOT. They are also blindingly bright for people. They melt ice cream, burn holes in softboxes and umbrellas, and can start fires VERY easily, burn hands and fingers, and are when they are "on" they are also burning themselves out fairly rapidly, and for the most part, have no way to change output levels except thru mechanical means, such as neutral density filters of wire scrims that cut light output. It takes thousands of dollars in hot lights to bring in enough light to stop rapid motion of a subject; the same motion-stropping ability can easily be had from a $100 Chinese-madser speedlight flash, OR A $99 Adorama Flashpoint monolight flash unit.

Your idea on how one uses studio flash is a bit off-base. The modeling light is a preview of the flash's lighting effects, and although dimmer than "some" constant lights, there are some studio flash units that have very brilliant 250 Watt modeling lights than can be used as constant light sources if need arises.

 

[Mastov]

Thanks Derrel, that's a big help.

But it seems there's no live view adjustment with strobes? Isn't this a major downside? Or is the workflow more oriented to reviewing photos after you take them? I'm just trying to wrap my head around the idea of lighting something you cannot see. I suppose a good photographer can see an image before they create it.

You also brought up that you cannot change "output" levels for Tungsten. So far I have bought two lights:

1)

View attachment 59377View attachment 59378View attachment 59379

2)
View attachment 59375View attachment 59376

If my understanding is correct:

What I have under 1) is an LED. It stays on until I turn it off and is not activated by a flash. So it's "continuous lighting", but it's not "hot".

What I have under 2) is called what? It fits both incandescent and fluorescent. This cannot be dimmed, it's only "on" or "off".

"strobes" are closer to 1)? Whereas "Tungsten" is more like 2). "LED" seems to have some of the benefits of continuous light without the downsides, but due to cost and current production quality it's not widely used.

I have found the CFL lights to be useless. They give off very little light and it's hard to direct them in any precise way.

If I want the most control over lighting "strobes" will give me buttons that allow me to set each individual light?

 

[Ihatemymoney]

I do web design for my company but recently fell into the role of also taking product photos. I am not a photographer, so I have zero experience using lights. I've begun reading "Light Science and Magic" but I still have questions.
I have a few questions:

1)

Most people seem to recommend "strobe" lights over "continuous lights". I can understand using strobe lights for portraits of people so as to not blind them or cause heat discomfort, but strobes seems impractical for product photography. I've tethered my camera to the computer to see the view finder on the screen using a program called "Capture One". This allows me to see lighting adjustments in real time before I take the photo. So with "Continuous" lighting I can tweak the light as I'm watching the screen. But with "Strobe" lighting it seem's I cannot adjust the light in real time and get immediate feedback.

2)

This is related to (1). When I visit a place like BH Photo or Adoram, I see the break down between "strobe" and "continuous lights". Then within "strobe" and "continuous lights" there are a lot more options. I see the following break down:

"continuous" = LED, Tungsten, Fluorescent, HMI

"Strobe" = Monolight

If my understanding is correct "Tungsten" and "Monolight" are the two most common lights. "Tungsten" for "continuous" and "Monolight" for strobe. Most people prefer "Monolight" since it's not "hot".

LED is mostly used for film? The current consensus is that it's expensive and build quality is unpredictable. If LED technology is improved this would be favored over Tungsten.

HMI is used on big hollywood sets. There aren't any complaints, except that it's expensive so most photographers don't use it. Like LED most people would prefer this if they could afford it.

Fluorescent is cooler and uses less energy, but it doesn't give much light. For continuous lighting "Tungsten" is preferred over "Fluorescent".

Is my understanding correct? Or am I off base?

What are you photographing ?

 

[Helen B]

Could you also give us an example (or a link to one) of the standard you wish to achieve. 'Product photography' covers a wide range of standards. No point us telling you how to light for an Apple campaign if you want eBay quality. Which part of the USA are you in?