Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting
Thread started 12 Dec 2006 (Tuesday) 09:30
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

So which is better, continuous lighting or flash?

 
NorCalAl
Senior Member
966 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Paradise, CA, USA
Dec 12, 2006 09:30 |  #1

I'm just getting my lighting setup started (one studio flash so far, along with the 430 and a flat panel flash for product) and I don't want to spend a lot. I see inexpensive flash units and inexpensive continuous lighting units.
Seems to me that using flash might be a bit more difficult since you can't really test till you shoot. I'm considering something like the Flashpoint units from adorama here. As well, it seems that continuous might be simpler to set up and meter since they are, well, continuously on. Britek lighting units under consideration here.
Any opinions?


Gear List

Nikon, the dark adventure begins...

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
davidfig
we over look the simplest things
davidfig's Avatar
3,224 posts
Joined May 2005
Fremont, California USA
Dec 12, 2006 09:34 |  #2

The best is continous lighting, the natural one from the sun maybe through clouds to defuse it.

This has been answered many times. The issue I have with continues lights is the heat. They may be on for a long time and it gets warm. That's why they started making flouresent versions.


5D | 17-40L | Tammy 28-75 2.8 | 28-135 | 50/1.8 | 85/1.8 | Sony A6000 2-Lens Kit | SEL35 1.8 | EF 50 1.8 on NEX as my 75mm 1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Curtis N's Avatar
19,129 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Northern Illinois, US
Dec 12, 2006 09:54 |  #3

For a quantitative comparison of strobe vs. continuous lighting, see this thread.


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN eventsexternal link
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible external link| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flashexternal link | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculatorexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
elTwitcho
frustrating as ....
elTwitcho's Avatar
1,478 posts
Joined Sep 2005
Toronto
Dec 12, 2006 10:10 |  #4

Depends on the look you want. Natural lighting produces a look that is very difficult to replicate with flash, and vice versa. Between flash heads and 350watt continuous lighting however, I wouldn't even consider hot lights a particularly attractive option. They produce alot of heat, they don't have near the same output as flash heads, yet they feel much brighter on the model/subject because it is on continuously. That's my opinion naturally, but I wouldn't work with hot lights if there was any other option available.


Rich
Some of my recent projects
Portraits from 2007external link
Urban Galleryexternal link
Where Toronto Was Builtexternal link
People and suchexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
NorCalAl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
966 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Paradise, CA, USA
Dec 12, 2006 10:20 |  #5

I should have said the Britek lights I am considering are the compact flourescent variety. I used - or tried using - some daylight-balanced floodlights (really on the cheap) last year and the room got WAY too hot.
I'm new to the whole lighting thing and I guess I should've figured this had been discussed to death. Kinda like the 24-70 vs 24-105 lens discussions...
I'm personally leaning toward the Britek solution, just was interested in other folks experiences and opinions.


Gear List

Nikon, the dark adventure begins...

LOG IN TO REPLY
FlashZebra
This space available
FlashZebra's Avatar
4,427 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Northern Kentucky
Dec 12, 2006 10:22 |  #6

"So which is better, continuous lighting or flash?"

Unless you are taking images of subjects that do not move, allowing the use of relatively low power continuous lights, and very long exposure times, for most photographers, flash is far more practical.

Electronic flash just has a tremendous gross light power potential, in a very small and accommodating package.

Enjoy! Lon


*
http://flashzebra.com/external link
*

LOG IN TO REPLY
NorCalAl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
966 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Paradise, CA, USA
Dec 12, 2006 20:25 |  #7

Good points all. I guess I'm buying flashes!


Gear List

Nikon, the dark adventure begins...

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,387 views & 0 likes for this thread
So which is better, continuous lighting or flash?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00107 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
Latest registered member is jackierose22
776 guests, 604 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016