DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Difference between continuous lights and strobe
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 29, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/27/2006 02:08:28 PM · #1
Hi

I just wanted to find out a bit about the main difference between continuous lights and strobe.
It seems to me (I could be wrong) that most profesionals use strobe.. what's the advantage? Is there one?

Thanks

Javier
 01/27/2006 02:19:13 PM · #2
I don't have either but from what Ive read the continuous lamps put out alot of heat.
 01/27/2006 02:21:22 PM · #3
If you are doing portraits, continuous lights get HOT fast.

Also, strobes allow you to work at higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures, because they burst light at higher intensities. You'd cook a model under continuous lighting that allowed you to shoot f/8 at 1/250 sec.
 01/27/2006 02:22:52 PM · #4
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
If you are doing portraits, continuous lights get HOT fast.

Also, strobes allow you to work at higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures, because they burst light at higher intensities. You'd cook a model under continuous lighting that allowed you to shoot f/8 at 1/250 sec.


...or with my 2000 watt power pack, 250th @ f32.
 01/27/2006 02:25:06 PM · #5
Anyone know of a really good site with information regarding the proper use of strobes?

I picked one up and have been experimenting a little, but have found it mighty easy to blow the heck out of my images with little difficulty.
 01/27/2006 02:27:32 PM · #6
Strobes are for photography. Continous lights are good for other things, like reading, making movies, cooking dinner, etc..
 01/27/2006 02:32:36 PM · #7
Here is one : //www.photoflexlightingschool.com/index.html
 01/27/2006 02:51:09 PM · #8
You can find some information on strobes at SportsShooter.com.
 01/27/2006 02:54:27 PM · #9
Strobe puts out more and better light.
 01/27/2006 03:15:07 PM · #10
If you wanna tinker with strobes, id say get some vivitar 285 flashes for less than 40 bucks apiece. so much power in such a little thing. I shoot them through umbrellas at f8 1/250 ISO 100 at half power and get great results.
 01/27/2006 03:17:43 PM · #11
Originally posted by hsteg:
If you wanna tinker with strobes, id say get some vivitar 285 flashes for less than 40 bucks apiece. so much power in such a little thing. I shoot them through umbrellas at f8 1/250 ISO 100 at half power and get great results.


How do they work with the Canon or do you use them as slaves only?
 01/27/2006 03:27:59 PM · #12
In defense of continuous lights, there's one thing you can't do at all with strobes: motion blur. Continuous lights also make it easier to judge shading, since they are WYSIWYG. They are also cheaper. But in just about every other way, strobes are better.
 01/27/2006 03:32:51 PM · #13
I'll have to somewhat agree with magnus, strobes aren't the best for all situations.

I'd like to add, it's much easier to learn lighting with continuous light, because of the "WYSIWYG" quality.
 01/27/2006 03:53:25 PM · #14
Thanks everybody.

As a beginner when it comes to light I do like the fact that I get to see what I'm lighting with continuous light.. I guess once I get a better feel for it I can move into strobes :)

Thanks again

javier
 01/27/2006 04:34:29 PM · #15
I thought I might bring out some positives for continuous since there was such overwhelming support for strobe.

First, as somebody pointed out, continuous is easier for beginners because the shadows are easier to judge. Many strobes do have modeling lights, but the intensity is low so ambient light will have a big affect on what you are seeing.

Second, as was already mentioned, with continuous light you can take advantage of motion blue. I have seen remarks from a fair number of fashion photographers who still prefer continuous for that reason. A few of these photographers went as far as stating that they prefer the quality of light from continuous over strobe. I would say these photographers are in the minority, but they were fairly bigs names who have done a significant amount of commerical work.

As far as heat is concerned, I am starting to see a lot more activity in the area of fluorescent lighting for still photography. Kino Flo, Lowell and Wescott are examples of companies that include fluourscent lighting products targeted at still photographers. I have even done the home depot lighting approach with fluourescents and created my own version of the Kino Flo Wall-o-light to experiment with.

This isn't to say that continuous, or continuous fluorescent, is the right choise for you, but I wanted to point out that strobes are not the only choice for the serious photographer.
 01/27/2006 04:43:45 PM · #16
Originally posted by jsolsona:
Thanks everybody.

As a beginner when it comes to light I do like the fact that I get to see what I'm lighting with continuous light.. I guess once I get a better feel for it I can move into strobes :)

Thanks again

javier


I just switched to strobes from continuous. Here are a few reasons I swtiched"
-HEAT HEAT HEAT! I hate being hot.
-I primarily shoot children and use at least a 1/160th shutter speed. With continuous, I was having to use f/1.8-f/4 with that shutterspeed. I just wasn't enough DOF for many things (especially groups) that I shot. It was mostly a problem with darker backdrops
-Shooting small children, the burst of light is much better for sleeping babies than a bright light staring them in the face. Bright light makes them irritable.
-Bright lights also make the pupil shrink which makes the eyes not as appealing.

That said, I think continuous is without a doubt the way to get started. As everyone mentioned, the what you see is what you get factor is huge when learning.

Just my 2c
 01/28/2006 02:09:10 PM · #17
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by hsteg:
If you wanna tinker with strobes, id say get some vivitar 285 flashes for less than 40 bucks apiece. so much power in such a little thing. I shoot them through umbrellas at f8 1/250 ISO 100 at half power and get great results.


How do they work with the Canon or do you use them as slaves only?

get a long sync cable or a radio slave system and plug that into your camera to fire them.
 01/28/2006 02:15:35 PM · #18
while we're on the subject, anyone know of a good radio slave system that is fairly cheap?
 01/28/2006 03:14:55 PM · #19
Originally posted by wavelength:
while we're on the subject, anyone know of a good radio slave system that is fairly cheap?


I use quantum's. They work very good. Might be selling them to get pocket wizards due to the dynalite packs having built in receivers.
 01/28/2006 03:17:21 PM · #20
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by wavelength:
while we're on the subject, anyone know of a good radio slave system that is fairly cheap?


I use quantum's. They work very good. Might be selling them to get pocket wizards due to the dynalite packs having built in receivers.


thanks Brent.
 01/28/2006 03:23:04 PM · #21
You are using Canon, so you can get an ST-E2 (I am pretty sure that is the product #) and put it on your hot shoe. That acts as the transmitter. Then you can your the EX flashes and fire them wirelessly. Nikon has a great wireless system. I have been using them lately. and plan to add their new little flashes as I go. My D200 will fire many flashes with my pop-up as the transmitter. The D70 will fire three with the pop up flash. Very cool system, but you can acheive very much the same thing with the Canon transmitter. I like it because it is so protable. Just take a background stand and a couple of flashes and I am a regular mobile studio!
 01/28/2006 03:49:49 PM · #22
hot lights will cause less pupil dialation than strobes lol.
 01/28/2006 03:54:08 PM · #23
Originally posted by kyebosh:
hot lights will cause less pupil dialation than strobes lol.


But, they keep your lunch wam for you ;)
 01/28/2006 03:57:28 PM · #24
there's a good question, are wide pupils, medium, or small pupils better??
 01/28/2006 03:59:30 PM · #25
Originally posted by wavelength:
there's a good question, are wide pupils, medium, or small pupils better??


Wide... it has been scientifically proven that psychologically people find wider pupils in photos more attractive and pleasing.

Message edited by author 2006-01-28 15:59:44.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 04:56:38 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 04:56:38 PM EDT.