All the technical talk is cool and all but I have one more questions. why do people not like constant lightning, it seems simple and looks to do a good job, from some articles i have read it seems to be much easier to work with. I have watched quite a few videos where people show their constant lighting setup and pictures they have taken and the pics look really good.
strobes seem like they are higher end equipment and have allot of bells and whistles, can easily put out more light, but i just cant see why people do not like constant lighting,
Because continuous lights are simply VERY DIM for photography. See the message #16 just a few above here.
We may think it is bright in the house at night, but the camera tells us flash is needed there.
Continuous lights are fine (arguably even preferable) for fixed non-moving subjects, products, tabletop, architecture, etc,, when a long shutter speed is acceptable (even one second... if the subject is not going anywhere). We can see their shadows, and the camera can meter them.
But humans move, and flash is greatly superior for portraits. Attempts to use even quite large continuous light arrays always end up suffering with high ISO, wide apertures, and slow shutter speeds trying to make it work. Whereas flash can allow normal sunlight exposures, f/11 at 1/200 second at ISO 100... etc.
Faster shutter speeds drastically reduce continuous light exposures, whereas shutter speed has no effect on flash exposure (the flash duration is faster and briefer than the shutter duration).
Continuous lights can be HOT too, uncomfortable, sweaty.. All the time the shutter is not open, they are merely creating heat. But it is true today that modern cameras are able to work better with high ISO, like ISO 800 or 1600. It could be acceptable to you? Not to me though.
