Continuous lighting vs. Flash

I am doing research on lighting and looking to go with continuous vs. Flash.

In research I am getting some feedback about using Flash, but my feeling is I can see what I am getting with continuous. That is as far as shadows, overall lighting, and hotspots. With flash you can't really see the result until you take the shot.

Looking for feedback on what others prefer.

Thanks

I feel like I'm having a Deja Vu experience. Oh wait, I just replied with the same answer in your other thread. Most studio strobes have modeling lights which allow you to see the result before taking the shot.

Modeling lights on all but the more expensive strobes are too weak to be of much use for pre-visualizing shadows. A 60 or 100 watt incandescent bulb just isn't strong enough.
You can buy 3 to 5 bulb daylight balanced CFL heads from places like B&H now for around $200 or a little less. These are pretty good for continuous lighting. Stay way from tungsten though. Too hot, too much juice needed to power them. You can alos buy 100 to 150 actual-watt daylight balanced CFL's from a few online retailers. These put out as much light as a 500 or 600 watt tungsten lights, but run much cooler and suck up much less juice.

Only problem with continous lighting is it takes ALOT of light to allow you to use smaller apertures, which, as mentioned above, leads to heat issues.

Covered a little in an FAQ: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=113639

With 2x 105 CFL's in a 2x3' softbox, I am shooting at around ISO 400, 1/90 @ f/4 or so.

Witha couple 50 watt CFL's for hair or accent lights, it can be pushed to 1/125 or maybe ISO 200. Not too bad for portrait work.

c71clark wrote in post #5963752
With 2x 105 CFL's in a 2x3' softbox, I am shooting at around ISO 400, 1/90 @ f/4 or so.

Witha couple 50 watt CFL's for hair or accent lights, it can be pushed to 1/125 or maybe ISO 200. Not too bad for portrait work.

I have been looking at the INTERFIT Cool Lite 5 kit with 2 heads. The two of the would have 500 watts each (eqv). I not sure how that compares to your set up but I was wanting to be able to shoot at f4 around 1/125 at ISO 100.

Is this going to be possible.

Probably not with just the one head, unless it's a very tight shot where you can get the light *very* close to the subject. Some of it would depend on the light modifier you may or may not use. I put my lights in a softbox with the front diffuser attached. Without it I might get another stop of light.
If you use a reflector, or better yet, a second light for fill, it's more likely. My setup so far is the 2 big 105 watt lights in one softbox as the main, and 2 separate 35 watt CFL's as fill/hair/rim or whatever.

If I do buy the Impact 5-light head http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ive_Lamp_Fluore​scent.html, it will be because I can replace the 30 watt bulbs included with 5 50 watt bulbs instead. http://www.1000bulbs.c​om …ompact-Fluorescents/8742/That would put out a LOT of light... about 1250 watts tungsten equivalent for one head.

I am still working all this out, but so far it looks like you need to put out at least 20,000 lumens of light (around 1,500 watt tungsten, or 400 watt CFL) to get the shuuter speed up enough and the aperture closed enough to work comfortably.

Going with strobes is the easy answer, of course, and with a flash meter, it isn't really that hard technically. It just takes some practice pre-visualizing the light. My goal is to be good at both.

c71clark wrote in post #5965619
Probably not with just the one head, unless it's a very tight shot where you can get the light *very* close to the subject. Some of it would depend on the light modifier you may or may not use. I put my lights in a softbox with the front diffuser attached. Without it I might get another stop of light.
If you use a reflector, or better yet, a second light for fill, it's more likely. My setup so far is the 2 big 105 watt lights in one softbox as the main, and 2 separate 35 watt CFL's as fill/hair/rim or whatever.

If I do buy the Impact 5-light head http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ive_Lamp_Fluore​scent.html, it will be because I can replace the 30 watt bulbs included with 5 50 watt bulbs instead. http://www.1000bulbs.c​om …ompact-Fluorescents/8742/That would put out a LOT of light... about 1250 watts tungsten equivalent for one head.

I am still working all this out, but so far it looks like you need to put out at least 20,000 lumens of light (around 1,500 watt tungsten, or 400 watt CFL) to get the shuuter speed up enough and the aperture closed enough to work comfortably.

Going with strobes is the easy answer, of course, and with a flash meter, it isn't really that hard technically. It just takes some practice pre-visualizing the light. My goal is to be good at both.

When you say you need to have the watts to about 400 watt CFL to work in good shutter speed and apeture are you talking actually CFL watts or eqv. I think the set up I am looking at is 2 heads each with about 250 CFL and 500 eqv or 1000 eqv for total. Any idea at what that might let you work at as far as ISO and shutter.

one other factor that could come into play is the person's health. let me clarify, that is kind of broad.
sometimes strobe lights, or flashing lights can induce seizures in some people with epilepsy.

400 *actual* CFL watt's should be a good start. Remember to have maybe 25% of that be fill/accent/hair/rim/w​hatever.

There is a guy in the studio I use that has some high continuous lights. He was telling me that they produce 750 watts but the bulbs pop from time to time and cost around $80 per bulb.

CFL's? I've used mine for around 100 hours so far, with no problems. 750 sounds like halogen maybe. The 150 watt CFL's cost about $55 or so, and have a lifespan of about 8000 hours.