Portrait Studio Lighting?

[devinphoto]

What type of portrait lighting is best to use for portraits? Tungsten? HMI? Flourescent?

[Kristy]

I would strongly suggest that you research Strobe lighting over continuous... :)

[devinphoto]

How do you think floodlights with reflectors would work out?

[Curtis N]

Here's a thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=207339) that compares continuous and strobe lighting in quantitative terms.

It is certainly possible to make good portraits with continuous lighting. But electronic flash has distinct advantages.

For most common types of portraiture, what's more important than the type of light source is the way it's modified and diffused to create a large light source.

[LightingMan]

Devin
As I am fond of telling my students, one can make totally successful portraits with nothing more than a 60 watt light bulb. However, being able to do it does not mean it's the most practical way to go. You will not see very many professional portrait studios using continuous lights. That alone should be your biggest indicator that cool, powerful studio flash units remain the lighting device of choice for the vast majority of professionals, and for very good reasons.

Flash units have the advantage of providing a modeling light that is powerful enough for us to see how we are lighting our subject without blinding or baking them at the same time. Then when it is time for making an exposure, they can unleash a huge amount of light for an instant that can light a large subject and freeze any movement at the same time. Raw power can be indispensable when there is a great need for depth of field or to light a large group of people at a significant distance.

I got a kick out of reading Curtis N's evaluation of studio strobes vs. 1000 watts of hot lights. He made the point very well. In order to get anything close to the studio strobes he was comparing, the hot lights he tested required a shutter speed of 2/3rds of a second. That's a very long time for the shutter to be open and will not even begin to stop motion blur.

The fact that flash units have a very powerful, yet very brief duration is yet another reason they are the first choice of professional image makers. I have encountered many, many people who thought they could make it with some form of continuous lights and as soon as they tried anything more adventurous than a simple head and shoulders portrait, they realized that they were in trouble.

Portrait subjects grow tired of having a thousand watts or more of continuous light blasting them in the face and of course if that light is coming from a filament, you have a lot of heat being generated as well.

Lastly, I need to mention a very popular excuse for buying continuous light sources.
Here it is: "They will let you get what you see."
....suggesting that with studio flash units you will NOT get what you see.

This phrase is such a tiresome one for me. The sad part is that there is a qualified bit of truth to it but the fact is that THAT truth is totally unnecessary. I have used cool studio strobes for 26 years and I have ALWAYS gotten PRECISELY what I have seen with my eyes. Let's go back for a moment to the days before digital when the only way a photographer could actually see a sample of his lighting setup was by taking a Polaroid. Cameras didn't have at cute little TV screen on the back in those days so you could see what you just did. You either shot a ton of expensive Polaroids OR you learned how to light so that you got what you saw with your eyes. Again, sadly, very few teachers taught the concept of getting what you see. I will never understand why because we have our eyes and if the lighting equipment we use can indeed provide us with an accurate glimpse of what the final image will look like, then why wouldn't we want in that way?

The problem originates from a single source. That of camera dealers selling, and photographers buying flash units with different power ratings to be used together. Here is the common scenario. They buy a four light package where we have two XYZ1600's, one XYZ800 and one XYZ400. This is done with some misplaced logic that the units being used for the hair light and background light are less important and require less power. This is an enormous blunder. Let me explain why.

Let’s take our kit of XYZ flash units as our example. They are all made by the same company. Two units have 1600 watt seconds of power. One has 800 watt seconds and one has only 400 watt seconds. Now, let’s compare those power ratings in terms that are easier to understand. The 800 watt unit will provide precisely one f stop less light than the 1600 units will and the 400 watt unit will provide two stops less than the 1600 and one stop less than the 800 watt unit. That’s there different levels of power. Now, let’s talk about manufacturing standards. If these three types of units are all made by one company then you have a virtual certainty that they have standardized on a single kind of modeling bulb. Remember that the modeling bulb is the small continuous light that lives right there with the strobe tube so you can see where the light from the strobe will be when you take your picture and the lights flash. The camera does not record the modeling bulb’s output because it is far, far below the output of the flash. The modeling bulb is there so we can see the light. This is a good thing.

The problem comes in when we look at the relative power levels of the flash portions of these units. Remember we have three different powers here. Yet because of manufacturing standardization, all three units use precisely the same kind of modeling bulb. Probably 150 watts or so. This is the core of our problem. If we set up a portrait using these four lights where we have a main light, a fill light and hair light and a background light and leave all of our lights on a their full power level here is what will happen. We will use the 1600 units for the main and fill lights. We will then setup the 800 watt unit for the background light and the 400 watt unit for the hair light. Once we get everything set up so that it looks good to our eyes. The main light is lighting the subject well, we have just the right amount of fill light, the hair light looks perfect and the background light is providing just enough light on the background to light it perfectly. Ok, everything looks great to our eyes. We take a meter reading at the subject to determine our taking aperture and set the f stop on our camera. We make our exposure. Now, let’s print out that image and take a good look at what happened.

What do we see? We see the lighting on the subject. It’s just where we put it but there is a difference. It no longer looks like it did in the real world. Why is this? Simple. The output of the flash units was different one to the next whereas the modeling lights were all identical. We saw one thing, but the camera recorded something entirely different. The main and fill lights look as they did because they have identical outputs. The background light on the other hand is half the power and therefore one full f stop lower than we wanted it to be. The background does not have as much light on it as we thought because the strobe part of the unit was only 800 watts. In like manner, our hair light does not look as predicted. Why? Because that unit is a full two stops below the main and fill. Our hair light is two full stops darker than we wanted it to be.

So here lies the reasoning for why so many people get caught up wanting continuous lights. This is almost tragic because it is just not necessary. The mixed bag set of lights we discussed here can indeed be used in a way that WILL give us what we see. One can accomplish this by simply turning down the power using what I call the “volume” control on the back of the unit. If we leave the modeling lights on a full power and NOT set them to the tracking mode where they decrease as we turn down the power, can we arrive at settings that will give us what we see? The answer is yes but it comes with a huge price. That of wasted power. In order for this lighting kit to give us what we see, we will have to turn down the 800 watt unit to 400 watts which is half power so it matches the output of the 400 watt unit. We then will have to turn down the two 1600 watt units to one quarter power which is 400 watts.

Under these settings, our four light system will indeed give use what we see. But look at the wasted power not being utilized. Photographers will not want to do this. No one will just leave their lights at these lower settings without touching them. Is their any other way to make THIS lighting kit provide “What you see is what you get” lighting? Yes there is but again it’s not very practical. You would have to install modeling bulbs at proportionately identical power levels. That means that you would have to find three different kinds of modeling bulbs where one was a stop lower than another and one more that was two stops down and install them in the appropriate flash units so that the most powerful bulbs were in the 1600’s and the next one down in the 800 and the lowest output in the 400 watt unit. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not very. Even if you could find the same kinds of bulbs with different power outputs AND that would fit, you would have the new issue of the lower power bulbs possibly not being bright enough to see what the light was doing. It’s just problem after problem after problem.

After 26 years in the business, more than 20 of that teaching, it remains the single greatest cause of new photographer frustration, confusion and misery. After years of tinkering and endless trial and error, most photographers eventually figure out a way to adjust their lights so they get something similar to what they see but most just accept that they have to keep starring at that little TV on the back of their camera to see if they need to adjust a light up or down so it actually records the way they want it. How sad. And how sad that the camera stores keep selling mixed power lighting kits not realizing themselves that the photographer will struggle to get something that is predictable.

Now, if we take another route and select four lights all the same power, we will be in much better shape. Let’s say we buy four XYZ800’s this time. Now we set up the same portrait as before. We measure our light, set the camera and make our exposure. What is the result this time? The image looks just like it did when we were standing there. How cool! No misery. No agony. No shoot, look, adjust, shoot, look, adjust over and over again. If any of the lights, need adjusting, we can set the modeling lights to track and when we adjust the volume control, the modeling bulb declines along with the strobe output. The accuracy of this tracking is different from one manufacturer to another. Some units do not track as accurately as they should. If you reduce the flash output by 2 and a half stops the modeling bulb should also reduce by 2 and a half stops. If it does not, then you will not get precisely what you are seeing. You are still better off than having all those units of different power outputs however.

Some mono lights are clearly better than others with the accuracy of their tracking feature. I recently tested the Novatron M600 mono light. It’s brand new. I was pleasantly surprised at just how accurate it tracked over a 5 stop range. It was nearly ruler flat on my graph giving it a very big advantage over older units that did not track accurately.

The other kind of light setup that will give you what you see is the simple pack and head system where all of the flash heads connect to a central power pack. They all use the same modeling lights and the power from the pack is evenly divided among the heads so you always get precisely what you see. This has been my studio lighting of choice since the early eighties. I also enjoy using identical mono lights for location work but for the camera room, I have found the pack and head system simple, reliable and more importantly, predictable. I always get what I see and that is the single most important factor in my being in control of my lights. I can concentrate on pose, creativity and working quickly and efficiently with huge variety. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel and start from scratch every time I think of a new lighting concept. I just move them around, meter and shoot.

So having said all that, the business of choosing studio strobes over continuous lights is an easy one for me because I know that I can get what I see as long as I buy a kit of lights that will LET me get what I see. The issues have never been with the studio flash units. It’s always been in the fact that people buy mixed setups and then agonize over the fact that they have a hard time getting predictable results.

I think it would be wise for you to take your time, learn about lighting which does not require professional equipment at all, and then make a decision that will allow you to achieve your goals without road blocks impeding your progress and creativity. I hope this has been helpful for you in understanding a little about studio lighting equipment.
Best wishes,

[devinphoto]

Scott,
Thanks so much for taking the time to give me so much info. Very helpful! The main reason I was looking toward the floodlights is the affordability. Now while researching them, there is not alot of positive info. Could you maybe suggest any strobe lighting that would appeal to a smaller budget? One that would work good for portraits?
Thanks again!

[LightingMan]

HI Devin
Glad to be of any help that I can. For someone just beginning, I would suggest that you consider a simple, not too expensive Novatron starter kit. Look at one that has 600 watts of power if you can afford it. More would be better but this is fine for a start. A couple of heads will get you going and you can add two more heads as finances allow. Later on you can also upgrade to a bigger power pack leaving your 600 as a backup should you ever have a failure.

This is the kind of system I have used my entire career. You can visit my site and see over 50 examples of my images with all the studio work being done with this kind of lighting kit. Remember. You are the one making the images. Not the equipment.

Many will tell you to go and get a mono light and then add another and another as you can afford and there is nothing wrong with this. I am just suggesting something that will be simple, reliable and less intimidating so you can spend your valuable time learning about the things you need to be learning about which include posing and creative thinking.

Just about any studio lighting can work for you. I just feel that if you were my daughter and I could buy you anything for Christmas to give you a good start, that this is what it would be.
Best wishes and feel free to write when you need a little help with somthing.

[liza]

What do you think of Elinchrom, Scott? That's the direction I may take when purchasing my lights.

[Curtis N]

Scott,

Thank you for your valuable post above. Since the question of continuous vs. strobe lighting comes up about once a week, I hereby suggest that the mods add it to the studio flash FAQ sticky at the top of this section.

The issue of matching the output of modeling lights with strobes of differing power levels has been discussed before and generally leads to confusion. It sure would be nice if the manufacturers would ship proportionally sized modeling lights with their strobes as standard equipment.

[LightingMan]

Hi Liza:
I am all about being practical and not blowing money just for the fun of it. Elinchrom is a fine company. Swiss I believe. They make a great deal of high power equipment frequently use by large commercial studios to photograph cars and other large items. They make some smaller stuff too but I question why one would go this route if their goals are simple portraiture. I would rather see you invest in something that was usable, reliable and practical for your situation and use the extra money to invest in something educational or a focal length lens that you don't have but do need.

I have little doubt that Elinchrom is very fine equipment. I simply encourage asking questions about what is practical for your situation. It's important to remember that as a species, photographers love to buy and recomment equipment. The more the better. I should know. I was once like that. Guilty as can be. Then one day, my good friend of 26 years named Louis, who is only a not so serious amateur, hurt my feelings saying the following statement to me. "Why don't you stop all this crap about buying gadgets and more equipment and get out there and take some pictures!" It hurt my feelings at the time but here I am 26 years later quoting him. He was right and I am glad he hurt my feelings that day. In the beginning it's all about the hardware and the toys. If the unit has an extra button on it, we just know that pressing that button will make our photographs better. It's just part of the learning process that we have to get past.
Best wishes,

[LightingMan]

Thanks for your note Curtis. I appreciated the effort you went through to demonstrate the limited possibilities with garage work lights.

Thank you for your kind remarks and for being one of the people who do grasp the importance of equipment allowing you to GET WHAT YOU SEE!
Take care,

[sfaust]

I just need add my own opinion regarding continuous lighting vs strobe after reading the above posts. They paint such a glib vision of using continuous lighting, and that you would need a truck load of lights, huge air conditioners, a few zillion gigawatts to power them, and no professional would ever use them.

Well, I am a professional photographer shooting mainly for corporate business and magazines. I use them often. I know many other professionals that also use them. They have very specific advantages over strobes for certain types of shoot. There is a number of manufacturers that are kept afloat by pros who use continuous lighting. I have other photographers asking me all the time how I create the warmth, depth, and tones in some of my images. I just tell them to do something others would tell them to avoid. Use continuous lighting!

I have a studio full of White Lightning and Speedotron strobe equipment, as well as a few small continuous lighting kits fro Lowell and Arri. The continuous lighting kits are mainly used for the video and multimedia work we do, but I also use them about 25% of the time for shooting stills of people and products as well. There is a quality that is very different from strobe lighting, and the minor inconveniences of using continuous lighting is well worth the effort.

Granted, strobes are more powerful. But that doesn't mean you have to use all that power to take an image. Just as if you owned a Ferrari, it doesn't mean you always need to drive fast. With a Ferrari, its is just as capable of doing 10mph as it is going 200mph. But strobes, thats not the case. Even their lowest setting is a lot of power. You really can't throttle down a strobe system easily.

That is where continuous lighting shines. They are low in power, and that opens up some creative options that are not easily accomplished with strobes. One is that it makes it very easy to shoot at wide open apertures which create a very nice soft blurred background. Second, it allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds for times you want to include motion in your image, such as a flowing gown, curtains, or backgrounds. When I want that look, I put away my strobes and drag out the continuous lighting kits.

Here is a perfect example of the style that is hard to create with strobe. Very low power, lights in close for good fall off, very wide aperture to soften the background.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/122/273422884_6c6a13c14e.jpg?v=0


It's more than a head and shoulders, and never did I find myself in trouble. The model did not bake, the room did not get hot or melt, there was no supplemental air conditioning needed. Those are misconceptions by people who haven't don't a lot of lighting with continuous lighting. Or, were trying to recreate a strobe look with lots of lights.

Granted, if you were going to try to match the same light output as a 1000ws strobe, that would be the case. But if you are trying to make a portrait and willing to use apertures well below f16, its not the case at all. In an average room, a 500W and 650W light will not create a big heat issue. In a small room it will get a little warm, but no one will melt or become all that uncomfortable.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/104/276258502_6c5969b696.jpg?v=0

Another advantage to shooting with continuous lighting is that its very easy to balance it with the available or ambient lighting. The image above was taken with a combination of tungsten 'work' lights and balanced with the available light coming in from the studio windows. Again, heat was never an issue for the entire shoot. It was shot with a 70-200 2.8L wide at 1/125th. Another creative benefit of mixing two light sources is that you can play the warm lighting of the tungsten against the cool lighting of daylight, as in this example.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/306893500_0ec3360b5d.jpg?v=0

This is another image shot in my studio and balanced with the available lighting in the hallway. Shot with a 85mm, f1.8, 1/350th. I used a single 500w 'work' light shot through a diffusion panel. The lighting also covered the subject full length, but this was the most striking image from that shoot. I also shot some at the same time with strobe, but the continuous lighting images blew away the strobe because of the overall feel.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/273422886_89d7ded916.jpg?v=0

Another example with two work lights, one 650w and one 500w. The 650w was shot through a diffuser for the subject, and the 500w was used for the background.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/322683512_c63e80d86e.jpg?v=0

Another example with work lights. A 650w for the model, 500w for fill, and a LilPepper 250w for the background. Both the lights for the model were shot through diffusers. 70-200mm, f2.8, 1/125s.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/276257303_288c1ae792.jpg?v=0

One last example, as it shows another advantage with shooting at wider apertures and slower shutter speeds. The background in this shot is a emergency space blanket. If you shot this with strobe at f16, or even f8, the space blanket would look, well, like a space blanket. But by shooting at f2.8, no only is the background out of focus, but the slower shutter speed at 1/60th allowed the motion created by the fan blowing the space blanket to create a very nice blurred and out of focus background.

Most strobes won't power down very well to allow you to use wide open apertures, and the duration of the flash is so fast that it will always stop motion and freeze everything. In many images, those are benefits. But it also removes a number of good creative options from your tool box.

When I use continuous lighting to shoot the style of images shown above, I can do so with two normal household outlets, without building up much heat, and the session is comfortable for both the photographer and the model. No one melts, is blinded, or dying of heat. They can be hot, heat can be an issue, but only if you overdo it with the lighting. Two lights, a 650w and a 500w works well in most circumstances with minimum of heat issues.

The key is to embrace shooting at wide open apertures and shutter speeds around 1/60th, rather than trying to get f16 at your highest sync speed. It won't look like something shot in a studio, it will appear more like natural available light. And that is a very creative advantage.

Once you learn how to work with them and avoid their drawbacks, they are a very nice creative tool. And if someone is on a tight budget, these will get them shooting and learning just as much as using strobes. I don't see why someone couldn't start off with a cheap set of continuous lights, learn how to use the effectively, and once they purchase strobes continue to use the for the unique style and looks they give. I thought mine would sit idle and never be used again once I got my strobes years and years ago (one of my Speedotron packs is over 18yrs old and going strong!). But I was wrong, and I continue to use the hot lights to this day.

[liza]

Hi Liza:
I am all about being practical and not blowing money just for the fun of it. Elinchrom is a fine company. Swiss I believe. They make a great deal of high power equipment frequently use by large commercial studios to photograph cars and other large items. They make some smaller stuff too but I question why one would go this route if their goals are simple portraiture. I would rather see you invest in something that was usable, reliable and practical for your situation and use the extra money to invest in something educational or a focal length lens that you don't have but do need.


Actually, I'd be using the lighting for bridal and high school senior portraits, the latter of which is the bulk of my paid portraiture at this point. While I prefer environmental portraits as a rule, I would still like a studio set up of good quality for my work. A set of Elinchroms isn't prohibitively expensive ($1300 USD) compared to the revenue generated. I didn't want to purchase Alien Bees or White Lightnings as I really prefer to obtain something more durable and long lasting.

[D. Craig Flory]

Actually, I'd be using the lighting for bridal and high school senior portraits, the latter of which is the bulk of my paid portraiture at this point. While I prefer environmental portraits as a rule, I would still like a studio set up of good quality for my work. A set of Elinchroms isn't prohibitively expensive ($1300 USD) compared to the revenue generated. I didn't want to purchase Alien Bees or White Lightnings as I really prefer to obtain something more durable and long lasting.

If you want something durable, and long lasting, I suggest going Photogenic. I have owned 6 Photogenic Powerlights for a couple of decades. There is a good reason that Photogenic has been around for over 100 years.

If you are looking to create images of brides and seniors ... you do NOT want hot lights. They generate heat so if you have a summer session your air conditioning has to work twice as hard. And, what if you have a bridal portrait and her veil touches a flood light ?

Go strobes definitely.

[sfaust]

I agree, definitely don't go with hot lights for brides, seniors, or even traditional family portraiture. I think they are very usable for someone on a budget trying to learn lighting, to augment an existing strobe setup, or just for creative experimentation. But for an everyday portrait studio business, they aren't really well suited. Ie, you've got enough depth of field for a single person, or a couple, but trying to do a family with hot lights just won't cut it.

nd, what if you have a bridal portrait and her veil touches a flood light ?

I can't see that happening unless the photographer puts the light very close and without a diffusion panel or soft box. Neither of which is recommended. Besides, the lighting would be soooo harsh!

I've always got a diffusion panel between the subject and the light. Usually about 4' from subject to diffusion panel, and another 3' from the panel to the light. So the subject is always 7' from the light source. Thats part of the reason they never feel any heat from the lamps, they just aren't close enough. And there is very little risk with that distance as well.

But my response wasn't really directed at Liza, but more for devinphoto since he asked specifically about hot lights/reflectors, and appreciated the cost savings. I just wanted him to know that yes, you can get some excellent results from hot lights if you take the time to learn how to use them properly, safely, and with minimal issues form heat.

[markbluemica]

excellent post sfaust its made me change my mind on continuous lighting

[LightingMan]

Thanks to the several people who added comments about the continuous vs strobe discussion. Especially Stephen.

I sincerely appreciate your comments Stephen and you have some very nice work. I think that you perhaps missed some of my comments and believe that I am totally against continuous light sources for any purpose. This is absolutely not the case at all. I have used them myself over the years for specific needs. One example was when I was photographing G scale model railroad equipment for USA Trains to put into their national magazine ads. To create a sense of size and scale for a 20 inch long locomotive, I wanted a huge depth of field and also needed to record the lights on and within the engine. Since these were tungsten lights, I chose to use tungsten balanced transparency film and use nothing more than my modeling light bulbs as a light source. This meant that I would be doing long exposures to be able to shoot a f 22 and f 32. It is a lack of depth of field that always gives away the miniatures in the Godzilla movies. If the engine was tack sharp from front to back while looking at it from a three quarter view, it would look massive and very realistic. Another advantage I had during these long exposures was to fire some fog in front of the engine so the headlights produced powerful looking beams of light.

I do feel that continuous lights have their place but for a working portrait photographer earning a living with his or her camera for the first time, they are not usually the best choice for the many reasons I have already mentioned.

I think you missed my comments about me nearly always shooting my regular portraits at f 4 or even 2.8 to keep the background nicely out of focus. You will find that in a majority of my posts including the one we are discussing, I mentioned doing an award winning portrait with nothing more than a 60 watt light bulb. You would be hard pressed to get f 16 from a 60 watt light bulb. I think you and I are more on the same page than you may think.

If you read my posts you will also know that I am vigorously in favor of photographers being fully in control over their lights which means control over how much light leaves the light source. I would never be limited to high power just because I use studio flash units. I have demonstrated how easy it is to control the amount of light leaving a flash head from 100% down to zero % in micro fine increments. I have to have creative options because of the variety of work I do. I could never be limited to too much or two little power.

I frequently post on this forum that people need no lighting equipment to learn about the various patterns of light that portrait photographers use. I teach them to use nothing more than a desk lamp with a light bulb to learn these important lighting patterns.

I must respectfully disagree that there is such a thing as a strobe “look”. Light is light. The only thing that changes is it’s color, it’s size, it’s shape and it’s intensity. The laws of physics remain constant. Devices that modify the characteristics of light do not know whether it’s continuous light or flash.

Clearly you have spent some quality time learning how to do excellent portrait work with continuous lights. I enjoy all of the samples you provided and would give many of them high scores if serving on a judging panel. They are however, all close up or near close up images requiring lesser amounts of light to achieve. I simply feel that when a new photographer has desires to enter the world of professional quality portrait work, that they should think in terms of being practical. You said you have a studio full of strobes as well as hot lights. For someone starting out, I think they should think about something that will not disappoint them the first time they try to do something more adventurous than a moderately close portrait. I have seen this more times than I can count. I get e-mails daily through my 400 page web site from people who bought a set of two hot lights and now have a basketball teem picture to do in a gym and are out of luck. I have a friend who works in a camera store in another state and he tells me of frequent returns of hot lights when people venture past doing simple living room portraits and need more power. The ones who only do small still life or close in portraits have a higher rate of contentment but we all know that if someone gets pretty good with head and shoulder portraits that more lofty goals are just around the corner and the lighting requirements that come with them.

Children and pets will not always sit still for hot lights and long shutter speeds and bright lights in their face. I feel one should not have to switch back and forth from one type of lighting equipment to another because of a different kind of client. I use the very same equipment for literally everything ranging from pets and people to commercial product work to location portraits in a huge courtroom.

Once again, I think we are closer on this than you think and I look forward to seeing more of your work. Look at all the juicy food for thought that this thread generated for those getting into lighting! Thanks again for sharing your images and your thoughts on the subject.
Respectfully,

[sfaust]

Scott, I do believe we are on the same page. But I felt as though there was an extreme underlying bias against continuous lighting, not by any one persons post alone, but when read as a whole. I just wanted to shed some 'light' on the subject with a little bit of a different perspective :-) It certainly wasn't a rebuttal to any one persons comments, pro or con. Valid points were made regarding the advantages of strobes.

Your idea that you can help people learn lighting with a 60watt bulb is right on target. I also suggest a similar idea in my workshops and forums, where they can practice all sorts of lighting styles on small objects and using a flashlight or gooseneck desk lamp, a selection of various materials for light modifiers, diffusion, grids, cookies, etc, and just playing those tools to see what can be done. Seeing all the different ways you can shape, control, and change a light is a great eye opener for many.

I came up with that idea when trying to figure out how to light a car prior to a project. Using a small 1/8th scale replica, I took a few small lights, and a variety to stuff to simulate large scrims, flags, gobos, etc. After an hour to two, I had a list of all the things I would need to rent for that shoot. And it pretty much worked out as planned. So that idea kind of continued on and expanded over time.

I commented regarding a 'studio strobe' look. That was really regarding the standard setups that people use with strobe. Two softboxes, a hair light and snoot, and standard lighting setups, f11 and 1/250. It just seems so common place, and so obvious on how it was lit. To me, that just became the 'studio strobe look. Trying some lighting with a single, or dual light source only, and one that requires one to work differently than many are accustomed to with strobes can really help jump start the creative juices. And I believe that putting away the strobes, using continuous can really help someone expand their lighting style because of the different you need to work with it.

I believe after looking at your images, you and I would have no problem mimicking the look of strobe lighting with continuous, or continuous lighting mimicking the look of strobe lighting. But I believe that comes from using both types of lighting, and the understanding on how they are both different and similar that only comes with time after using both. Another reason why I feel continuous lighting shouldn't be cast aside and recommend strobe as the only option for beginners or further experimentation. I feel you can start on either end of the spectrum,and will eventually meet in the middle knowing both.

I do agree fully that for someone trying to do portraits as a business, continuous lighting should only be used as an adjunct to studio strobe lighting, and not as a replacement for it. I pretty much stated that a couple posts back, and I hope I didn't mislead Liza, or anyone else. The initial comments were really aimed at devinphoto.

Yes, I do believe we are on the same page!

I also apologize if I lead this thread astray, and veered a bit further off the intended path of portrait lighting for a business, rather than generic portrait lighting techniques.

[D. Craig Flory]

I'm going off on a tangent from this discussion. I once was in a seminar with a very well known photographer. He showed images he had created using a pin-hole camera and I loved them. I also saw images done by a pro, using an instamatic, and they were also great. Equipment, in the right hands, doesn't matter too much.

With that said ... getting back to this thread, what light modifiers are used have a lot to do with how lighting looks. If someone uses a strobe, and a parabolic straight on, it gives an entirely different look from that same parabolic feathered so only the very outside of the penumbra is utilized. A softbox used at 6 feet unfeatherd shows a big difference from that same softbox used at 2½ feet and nicely feathered.

I am not anti-hot lights. They are fine for commerrcial - advertising work. And I love the way Al Gilbert uses them in a combination of strobe and quartz halogen hot lights. I also like just quartz halogen alone when used in conjunction with available light for environmental portraits. I wouldn't ever recommend ONLY hot lights.

There is a time, and a reason, for any type light, light modifier, camera, background, and more. It depends on the situation and the intended use.

[Mark_Cohran]

I have both White Lightnings and a continuous lighting setup (mainly used for video, but I sometimes us it for portraits as well). I agree with many of the posts above (especially Scott's point about having matched power on the strobes), but want to add just a couple of comments:

1. I've been using my White Lightnings for almost 7 years now. They are part of a portable kit and so get carried around and jostled quite a bit. In all that time, I had one minor problem with one strobe that the company quickly fixed at no cost to me. I don't think you need to be concerned with the durablity of these strobes. A lot of my friends and fellow photographers use them and swear by them.

2. I also enjoy using continuous light, and I'm very impressed by Stephen's photos. I just find stobes more convenient and easier to use - besides, in a small studio with no air-conditioning, hot lights can be a bit overwhelming for both the model and the photographer (and I sweat easily anyway). :)

Mark

[klmigut]

Very educational post. Great comments guys!

[pyterps]

Great post and if you haven't tried the Westcott Spiderlights, Continuous lights than you may want to take a look at them.

Dave

[Knightshade]

extremely informative, I'm glad I stopped in.

[Hossam]

wonderful posts both of you Scott & Stefen ,one can use both strobes and continuous lights as demands of the situation and photo style...
Thanks a lot for both of you.

[gilp]

HMI rocks....but it rocks your Wallet as well! KinoFlows consume little...and output little. so flashes are still the best most cost effective way to get a good power to consumption ratio and good enough output to work ar lower iso and smaller aperture.

However, if you can afford the ultimate... then HMI is the ultimate... total control of lightbeam, instant gratification of hotlights...and gorgeous balanced daylight!

[Thornfield]

It nice to see two people posting their, in my opinion, well qualified views on lighting.
Both are food for thought and have been very illuminating :)

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

:shock: I've just started to look at portrait style work and have begun collecting lighting equipment, and have just had my eyes opened to both styles of lighting:shock:

I'm starting with flash and will soon work with strobe, now I'll add continuous to the list.

Good thing the portrait style work is self-interest learning and not mandatory at this point.

Lightingman and Sfaust, thank you. This is why I stay on this forum. Good advice and opinions backed by fact.

[gilp]

:shock: I've just started to look at portrait style work and have begun collecting lighting equipment, and have just had my eyes opened to both styles of lighting:shock:

I'm starting with flash and will soon work with strobe, now I'll add continuous to the list.

Good thing the portrait style work is self-interest learning and not mandatory at this point.

Lightingman and Sfaust, thank you. This is why I stay on this forum. Good advice and opinions backed by fact.


flash and strob are one and the same, unless you mean, camera mounted vs off camera.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

flash and strob are one and the same, unless you mean, camera mounted vs off camera.

Yep, been working with on camera and recently aquired controller, umbrellas and stands. Family is already running when they see the case come out:confused:

[splitfyre]

This forum is easily the most valuable. To add to this thread I was in and out of the studio last year, and I found that I ended up using two flood lights w/ barn doors, plus one soft box.

From the discussion here it looks as though I should technically be able to take the continuous lights out and just use strobes and a soft box?

[Mikebethesda]

I have other photographers asking me all the time how I create the warmth, depth, and tones in some of my images. I just tell them to do something others would tell them to avoid. Use continuous lighting!

I have a studio full of White Lightning and Speedotron strobe equipment, as well as a few small continuous lighting kits fro Lowell and Arri. The continuous lighting kits are mainly used for the video and multimedia work we do, but I also use them about 25% of the time for shooting stills of people and products as well. There is a quality that is very different from strobe lighting, and the minor inconveniences of using continuous lighting is well worth the effort.
That is where continuous lighting shines. They are low in power, and that opens up some creative options that are not easily accomplished with strobes. One is that it makes it very easy to shoot at wide open apertures which create a very nice soft blurred background. Second, it allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds for times you want to include motion in your image, such as a flowing gown, curtains, or backgrounds. When I want that look, I put away my strobes and drag out the continuous lighting kits.

One last example, as it shows another advantage with shooting at wider apertures and slower shutter speeds. The background in this shot is a emergency space blanket. If you shot this with strobe at f16, or even f8, the space blanket would look, well, like a space blanket. But by shooting at f2.8, no only is the background out of focus, but the slower shutter speed at 1/60th allowed the motion created by the fan blowing the space blanket to create a very nice blurred and out of focus background.

Most strobes won't power down very well to allow you to use wide open apertures, and the duration of the flash is so fast that it will always stop motion and freeze everything. In many images, those are benefits. But it also removes a number of good creative options from your tool box.

When I use continuous lighting to shoot the style of images shown above, I can do so with two normal household outlets, without building up much heat, and the session is comfortable for both the photographer and the model. No one melts, is blinded, or dying of heat. They can be hot, heat can be an issue, but only if you overdo it with the lighting. Two lights, a 650w and a 500w works well in most circumstances with minimum of heat issues.

The key is to embrace shooting at wide open apertures and shutter speeds around 1/60th, rather than trying to get f16 at your highest sync speed. It won't look like something shot in a studio, it will appear more like natural available light. And that is a very creative advantage.

.

Stephen - your portraits are my favorite. Warm - classy - sensual. I have a set of Lowel lights that I use for video. Including a couple of Omni Lights, a Rifa light (softbox style) and a couple of Lowel Tota Tungsten lights.

What type of diffusion panel would you recommend ... the type you used for some of your example photos. I suppose you are not using a small diffusion screen directly a few inches in front of the light? Instead, standing panels?

Thanks for the tips - I have looked at your website because of other examples I have seen of your work. Fantastic.

Mike

[sfaust]

Mike, I use large 3'x6' Photoflex panels with white diffusion fabric on them, or sometimes an even larger Scrim Jim panel depending on whether I'm shooting full length or a small group.

A typical main light setup for me is a Lowell (DP/Omni) or Arri 650w fixture, a 3'x6' Photoflex panel about 3' to 4' from light, barn doors set to illuminate the whole panel, or a portion depending on the subject, and the panel as close as possible to the subject for some wrap around effect.

For the fill light, I like to use ambient lighting is possible. If not, I use another 3'x6' panel with a 250w or 500w fixture setup about the same distances as the main light/panel. If I want a hair light, or a kicker effect to add highlights along the subject, I use a 250w LilPepper direct on the subject and toward the rear. It has just the right amount of 'punch' to it without being too harsh.

[TMR Design]

Stephen,

As usual, thanks for your contributions. I enjoy your posts and I'm seeing consistencies between a lot of lighting pros that really convinces me I'm on the right track.

[Mikebethesda]

Mike, I use large 3'x6' Photoflex panels with white diffusion fabric on them, or sometimes an even larger Scrim Jim panel depending on whether I'm shooting full length or a small group.

A typical main light setup for me is a Lowell (DP/Omni) or Arri 650w fixture, a 3'x6' Photoflex panel about 3' to 4' from light, barn doors set to illuminate the whole panel, or a portion depending on the subject, and the panel as close as possible to the subject for some wrap around effect.

For the fill light, I like to use ambient lighting is possible. If not, I use another 3'x6' panel with a 250w or 500w fixture setup about the same distances as the main light/panel. If I want a hair light, or a kicker effect to add highlights along the subject, I use a 250w LilPepper direct on the subject and toward the rear. It has just the right amount of 'punch' to it without being too harsh.

I noticed that the 39x72 Photoflex light panel that comes as a kit, has a crossbar. Wouldn't the crossbar create a shadow if I tried to light the whole panel?

Mike

[sfaust]

You're quite welcome Robert!

Mike, I don't use the crossbar since mine didn't come with it and I've seen no reason to go out and get a new kit. Regardless, if the light is indeed softened you won't see a shadow anyway. The light will be diffused by the time it hits the subject. You will however notice the shadow in any reflections, such as the catch lights in the eyes, reflective areas of products, etc.

[Mikebethesda]

You're quite welcome Robert!

Mike, I don't use the crossbar since mine didn't come with it and I've seen no reason to go out and get a new kit. Regardless, if the light is indeed softened you won't see a shadow anyway. The light will be diffused by the time it hits the subject. You will however notice the shadow in any reflections, such as the catch lights in the eyes, reflective areas of products, etc.


OK - Well - my lighting kit expands. It's going to be fun. I think I'll be able to use the light panel kit in my video work too.

Thank you.

Mike

[sfaust]

I started using the panel most when doing corporate video, then it slowly made its way into my still work as well. Its a great modifier for either use.