Strobes Vs. Hotlights

[Big Mike]

I don't see why you couldn't shoot at F1.8 & ISO 160....as long as you keep the shutter speed under the max sync...and that might depend on the ambient light situation.

You might run into issues if you can't turn your strobe's power down low enough...but you could always move them farther away or use a filter of some sort.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Photogenic makes a really good line of portable strobes with really small, rechargeable battery packs. I mean these packs are not much bigger than Quantum battery packs made for on-camera flashes like an SB-800.

However, they are a little on the pricey side and I would make sure I had more than just one on location.

I shoot a lot of event photography and I am still using a very old set of Novatrons that I purchased over 25 years ago. I do not run them off battery packs, but as long as I can find a plug- and I carry super long industrial type extension cords- I am usually good to go. They beat the hell out of hot lights. I use Pocket Wizards now to sync them, because the voltage would have a real possiblity of frying my DSLR's.:stun:

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Move your subject away from the background to increase the shallow depth of field. Depending on your camera, you can vary your sync speed. Also, modern strobe sets today have variable light output, so that is another way to open up that f/stop to blur the background.

The Novatron set I mentioned above has two power settings- that's it. But the more you use your lights and more your learn about all of your equipment- you learn how to make things work. Even though my light kit is ancient by today's standards, they work just fine for almost any application. One of the best investments you can make is in a decent set of strobes. They will pay for themselves time and time again.

If you are shooting people, really, I cannot stress enough that there is no way I would use hotlights. They are not nearly versatile enough- at least not for what I shoot.

 

[Christie Photo]

If you are shooting people, really, I cannot stress enough that there is no way I would use hotlights.

I agree... especially for the day-in/day-out sort of portraits.

Now..... here's something I picked up YEARS ago: If you're working with bright modeling lights (bright... like hot lights), the pupil will constrict showing more of the iris... desirable for showing eye color. I've done this only on rare occasions. I'll put the bright lights on until just before I'm ready to shoot. Then they lights go out and I'm right to work before the pupils dilate. It's quite a feat to pull off. I was never convinced it's worth it.

-Pete

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I agree... especially for the day-in/day-out sort of portraits.

Now..... here's something I picked up YEARS ago: If you're working with bright modeling lights (bright... like hot lights), the pupil will constrict showing more of the iris... desirable for showing eye color. I've done this only on rare occasions. I'll put the bright lights on until just before I'm ready to shoot. Then they lights go out and I'm right to work before the pupils dilate. It's quite a feat to pull off. I was never convinced it's worth it.

-Pete

Hah, Pete the old Novatrons I have, the modeling lights are really a joke. Oh, they will give you an idea of what you will get when the strobes pop, but I could never imagine constricting the iris with them.

That is one of the biggest drawbacks to my old set of lights, is the modeling lights.

 

[JerryPH]

also, if you're using strobes you can't really shoot at f1.8 to get the background blurry, or am i wrong? Even with a 3200 speed film, definitely not with a 160. i might be wrong here only used strobes once.

Want a pic with strobes and a shallow DOF? Here you go:

... and here and not at F/1.8, but at F/1.4 :

And your comment about ISO shows your photography basics are just a touch backwards... because at ISO 3200, you would be tremendously OVERexposed as it is way too sensitive and quality woudl suck big time (very gainy shot)... all 3 of these pics are taken at ISO 100.

And yes I was using a flash and umbrella:

and lastly, i think it would take a lot of experience for a photographer to be able to paint with light using strobes, a beginner can start painting with hot lights, i love using shadows and obviously would be much harder to control with strobes.

That would impress the hell out of me too.. becuase one light paints in as close to a perfectly DARK/BLACK room as possible, using something like a flash light and your camera on a tripod with a long shutter exposure... no strobes are needed. But I can show you a youtube video where a guy did just that... with strobes, but it wasn't light painting, but exposing an incredible scene in near total darkness and a single strobe flashing multiple times.

 

[JerryPH]

strobes annoy the model though.
if it gets not too hot... continuous light is more relaxing for everyone.

I know you have to be saying that with tongue in cheek... lol

 

[Christie Photo]

Want a pic with strobes and a shallow DOF? Here you go:....

Well... this is a nice illustration of shallow DoF, but they're not portraits. Good catch too on the "paint with light" idea... can't (practically) be done with portraits.

I think WAY TOO MUCH value is given to shooting at f1.8 and wider. I've worked as a portrait photographer for 30 years, and I can't remember ever shooting at f1.8

When shooting outdoors, I would shoot wide open... mostly because I needed the shutter speed. In my film days, I think it was something like f3.8 at 1/15 sec, 160 ASA with a diffuser (the diffuser cost me half a stop). I would have prefered f5.6

In the studio (strobes), it was always f8. The results were plenty shallow... sometimes too shallow for couples.

I suspect this is because so many these days will use a normal lens (or shorter) for portraits. If you insist on using shorter lenses for portraits, you will have to shoot with a wider aperture. But if you use a longer lens, f8 will give you shallow enough results.

-Pete

 

[JerryPH]

Well... this is a nice illustration of shallow DoF, but they're not portraits.

With a razor thin DOF, and the stong possibility of the nose being blurred and eyes sharp, or visa-versa, we all know how non-viable this is in portraiture to do normally if pushed to the extreme.

However, a more realistic F/4 or F/5.6 is still able to more than blur backgrounds very well and offer a DOF that won't affect the face of your subject as long as they subject is not within arm's length of the backdrop and you are further from your subject. I was just trying to make a point becuase he said it was not possible. It is... and if needed, I can do it using a person's face to prove it.

I think WAY TOO MUCH value is given to shooting at f1.8 and wider. I've worked as a portrait photographer for 30 years, and I can't remember ever shooting at f1.8

The shallow DOF has it's place in portrature but it is not often needed in studio becuase we have control over the light that others outside a studio do not (and hence need the bigger apertures for), just look at most wedding portraiture.

However, anything numerically under F/2.8 is normally not really needed even in that case, and already "pushing it". One also loses sharpness at very open apertures compared to the sweet spot whch on most lenses is around the F/6-F/8 mark.

In the studio (strobes), it was always f8. The results were plenty shallow... sometimes too shallow for couples.

More open apertures are more for artistic expression than effectiveness in traditoinal studio portraiture, due to the shallow DOF, there were times I needed F11 to get what I wanted (group shot and multiple strobes on max), but it is rare. One uses the strobes to control light intensity so that we can control all the other aspects... shutter, aperture and ISO for best results.

Smaller apertures are definately needed if you are shooting more than 1 person deep in the studio, but depending on the lens used and your distance from the subjects, it can be done with a wide angle and an aperture like F/4 as long as the shot is wide and not deep or you are using a short/wide lens and are a bit further back from your subjects (increasing DOF).

I suspect this is because so many these days will use a normal lens (or shorter) for portraits. If you insist on using shorter lenses for portraits, you will have to shoot with a wider aperture. But if you use a longer lens, f8 will give you shallow enough results.

Very true. At 100-150mm your F/5.6 bokeh will appear *about* the same as a 50-75mm at F/4 and for portraiture artistic purposes, thats usually way more than enough for 1 person deep shots. At 2 deep you will need more, likely F/8 or smaller.

Though I know we are tossing around numbers, a LOT depends on camera/lens and ratio of distance of camera to subject vs camera to backdroptoo, of course.

I think we are on the same page, Pete.

 

[Christie Photo]

I think we are on the same page, Pete.

Oh, yeah. Absolutely.

Thanks for taking time to give a more thorough explanation.

-Pete

 

[SBlanca]

my strobe has a plug for the wall...i've got a lot to learn about this though..

 

[JerryPH]

my strobe has a plug for the wall...i've got a lot to learn about this though..

Don't we all... lol

 

[Alex_B]

I know you have to be saying that with tongue in cheek... lol

Me? Never! :mrgreen:

 

[Happy Hour]

I prefer continuous over strobes. I read a bunch of replies that were saying heat issues, but they need to keep up with the times. Yes the old flood lights get very hot but I use the new style light bulbs. which give me a great control on light the 5500k ones reproduce daylight beautifully. Strobes are nice but the kind of portrait work I do, continuous is better for me 1- I can see exactly how the photo will look before I take it.2- I prefer to use hand held over a tripod, so the continuous bumps my shutter speed up enough for hand. 3- when shooting a directional light (like only having 1 on the face or a silhouette ) It is much faster to change a bulb and point it and shoot than adjusting a strobe and snapping to see what it looks like.

 

[JerryPH]

1- I can see exactly how the photo will look before I take it.

2- I prefer to use hand held over a tripod, so the continuous bumps my shutter speed up enough for hand.

3- when shooting a directional light (like only having 1 on the face or a silhouette ) It is much faster to change a bulb and point it and shoot than adjusting a strobe and snapping to see what it looks like.

1 - I will guarantee you that with my limited experience, on the poses that I have practiced, I will get to 90% of what I want before the strobe gets pulled out of it's box. Thats just experience.

2 - Why would you assume that strobes require a tripod? I've yet to use a tripod in any of my sessions. And why would you think that continuous lights break the laws of physics and will give you higher shutter speeds than a strobe at equal light intensities (besides that, there is no convincing argument that you could use that would justify higher than any camera's maximum sync speed in a portraiture session)?

Fact is... a good strobe is a LOT brighter than any continuous light, just for a much shorter period of time... unless you are continuously blasting your model with one or two 400 watt bulbs. Even at that, you are not exceeding the power of a good SINGLE strobe, but likely just starting to come close.

On top of that, continuous or strobe, one is bound by the SAME laws of physics and the only way to control exposure is via your light source's intensity (which you have no control over, compared to a strobe's adjustability, BTW), ISO, aperture and shutter speed.

3 - See #1.

No offence, but none of what you said are really compelling arguments... and you STILL need a wall socket and have very limited portability.

You also cannot adjust the light intensity accurately to accomodate changing conditions... for example, expose a front lighting portrait of a couple in the setting sun... which within the last 15 minutes before the sunset will need to be adjusted at least 5 times to get a correct exposure. If anything, constant lighting limits your creativity AND your photographic possibilities on many levels.

It's only redeeming feature is "apparent" lower cost... but the learned know that a single strobe, lightstand and a peanut trigger will not only be more portable and flexible... but offer more creative possibilities for less than that continuous light setup. Toss in the cost of a reflector, and you will be hard pressed to compete with the results of this sub $200 kit.

I am not bashing anyone, but I do want to make sure that we don't mislead anyone into thinking something that is not 100% true.

My last point... how many top end professionals that you are aware of, use continuous lighting?