Differences between continuous lighting and strobe/flash

C

coldpenguin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,196
Edit My Images
Yes
Perhaps it is obvious, but I have read through the sticky a couple of times, but see no real mention of the continuous systems.

Ok, apart from the obvious, one is on all the time, the other is on for 1/fraction of a time, how are the two different types used?
Continuous is of use for video, where strobe isn't. Strobe can 'freeze' movement where continuous can't easily.

Would the two systems need to be used in different ways for 'standard' portraits?
 
The general deal with continuous is that it's relatively dim.

The cheap sets sold for photography are generally engulfed in marketing bullsh1t. Flash systems include many kinds of modifiers and different stands etc. Which allow you to play with light in a useful way.

The better continuous sets have the same mounts as flash.
 
As Phil says, affordable continuous lights are feeble, and many are very limited for light shaping modifiers due to the size of the fluorescent bulbs.

LED lights are coming along though, and could well change the game, but for now flash rules.
 
I can see some benefits of LED over flash. On my last night shoot we had a bright portable LED unit. It was easy to move it and constantly see the effects of the position and, importantly of the shadow and it's shape. The lighting guy was able to position it quickly without waiting to take a shot and get feedback from the guy at the camera. A bit like studio flash with preview lamps. It also helped with focussing. It may be a niche requirement but it was useful nonetheless.
Sorry I don't know which model and it's brightness level. Maybe a cheap one could be used in combination with a flash unit to make it quicker to set it up.
 
I was brought up with tungsten studio light and there was a fantastic variety available, that flash has never matched. However they were neither cheap to buy nor cheap to run. And unless you had a massive mobile generator and a crew of helpers, were seriously tied to the studio.
However most professional commercial studio and portrait photographers were well equipped would always use tungsten over flash when possible.

Amateur tungsten studio lights were based around Photoflood bulbs no 1 and 2. the 1's were brighter and had a very short life (an hour or so) while the 2's were slightly less bright but lasted much longer (they were both what was called overrun.) Normal Professional bulbs started at about 500 W and went up to 5000w so you needed a hefty electricity feed to your studio.

In use they were critically good for black and white, but were not dimmable when shooting colour, or the colour of the light would change with output. Dimmers for the larger spots were trunk sized rheostats.

All the light modifiers we use today started life on Tungsten lighting.

Modern continuous lighting especially leds. seem to have brought the size of units down to the that of flash.
Now that so many quality Dslrs have entered the cine world in a serious way. I am sure led lighting will follow the new cash cow wherever it leads. We can look forward to units that will be usable with the same modifiers at present owned by flash users. I have noticed some flash manufacturers are already offering led studio light that look all the world like flash units.
Led lighting is exceptionally efficient and can run off surprisingly small battery packs or generators.
 
coldpenguin said:
Perhaps it is obvious, but I have read through the sticky a couple of times, but see no real mention of the continuous systems.

Ok, apart from the obvious, one is on all the time, the other is on for 1/fraction of a time, how are the two different types used?
Continuous is of use for video, where strobe isn't. Strobe can 'freeze' movement where continuous can't easily.

Would the two systems need to be used in different ways for 'standard' portraits?
Click to expand...


As @Phil V points out its generally much dimmer then flash. The continuos lights that work, in MHO, well tend to be very specialist for example, I use an ARRI light a lot. But thats a real one trick pony. Its a good trick, but it is only one trick.
 
sk66 said:
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned how hot many continuous lights can be. They can be very uncomfortable to work under...
Click to expand...

Quite. The heat from tungsten bulbs was unbelievable, very uncomfortable for subjects and photographers alike and the fittings got dangerously hot. A serious H&S hazard.

I think there are some rose-tinted memories here re tungsten light. It was truly hateful. The output was pathetic compared to flash and, thankfully, flash swept it all away for stills shooting as soon as it became reliable and affordable. I never saw a softbox for tungsten either - they'd either melt or catch fire. No exaggeration :eek:

PS I once stuck a photoflood bulb in my dad's Anglepoise desk lamp. It quickly started smoking and all the wiring and bulb holder had to be replaced! He was not impressed LOL
 
Last edited:
Yep, tungsten lighting was truly horrible, or at least the affordable ones were.
The modern ones, fluorescent or LED, have overcome the heat and longevity problems but have introduced a new problem - the fact that the light source has a discontinuous spectrum, defficient in magenta. This may or may not cause a colour cast, which is easily corrected, but it also causes very poor colour rendition of red, orange and yellow colours, and that can't be corrected.

Fluorescent lights designed specifically for photography have a colour rendition index of typically 90 -95, which isn't too bad.
LED lights designed specifically for photography have a colour rendition index of typically 90, which isn't too bad either. But nearly all of the LED lights are really designed for home/security use, and despite what the sellers say, the colour rendition index is typically less than 70, the results are terrible. The same goes for the cheapies sold as photographic fluorescent lighting on fleabay.
 
HoppyUK said:
Quite. The heat from tungsten bulbs was unbelievable, very uncomfortable for subjects and photographers alike and the fittings got dangerously hot. A serious H&S hazard.

I think there are some rose-tinted memories here re tungsten light. It was truly hateful. The output was pathetic compared to flash and, thankfully, flash swept it all away for stills shooting as soon as it became reliable and affordable. I never saw a softbox for tungsten either - they'd either melt or catch fire. No exaggeration :eek:

PS I once stuck a photoflood bulb in my dad's Anglepoise desk lamp. It quickly started smoking and all the wiring and bulb holder had to be replaced! He was not impressed LOL
Click to expand...

All the professional tungsten lights that I used in the 50's to 80's certainly gave out a lot of heat but were all ventilated and double skinned and fitted with appropriate handles for adjusting.Aand also fitted to heavy weight compensated stands with cranks or ceiling fittings . Some were even fitted with heat filters. They were certainly not lacking in light and were more powerful than today's flashes. They were not particularly hot for the models as they were always used at a suitable distance. I had two enormous softboxes each with at least a dozen bulbs in and measuring some 8 ftx 4ft both of which could be elevated to act as top light. The bulbs were fitted with removable domed reflectors to send the light against the back board before it passed through the silk diffuser, giving a very soft light. Professionals did not use the red hot photo floods except perhaps in emergency on location.

Modern versions of Such lights are still available and used in TV every day.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yep, tungsten lighting was truly horrible, or at least the affordable ones were.
The modern ones, fluorescent or LED, have overcome the heat and longevity problems but have introduced a new problem - the fact that the light source has a discontinuous spectrum, defficient in magenta. This may or may not cause a colour cast, which is easily corrected, but it also causes very poor colour rendition of red, orange and yellow colours, and that can't be corrected.

Fluorescent lights designed specifically for photography have a colour rendition index of typically 90 -95, which isn't too bad.
LED lights designed specifically for photography have a colour rendition index of typically 90, which isn't too bad either. But nearly all of the LED lights are really designed for home/security use, and despite what the sellers say, the colour rendition index is typically less than 70, the results are terrible. The same goes for the cheapies sold as photographic fluorescent lighting on fleabay.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the manufacturers of LED lights will match their individual led colour output to the three sensor filters as the demand grows for them.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
All the professional tungsten lights that I used in the 50's to 80's certainly gave out a lot of heat but were all ventilated and double skinned and fitted with appropriate handles for adjusting.Aand also fitted to heavy weight compensated stands with cranks or ceiling fittings . Some were even fitted with heat filters. They were certainly not lacking in light and were more powerful than today's flashes. They were not particularly hot for the models as they were always used at a suitable distance. I had two enormous softboxes each with at least a dozen bulbs in and measuring some 8 ftx 4ft both of which could be elevated to act as top light. The bulbs were fitted with removable domed reflectors to send the light against the back board before it passed through the silk diffuser, giving a very soft light. Professionals did not use the red hot photo floods except perhaps in emergency on location.

Modern versions of Such lights are still available and used in TV every day.
Click to expand...

Cripes! I salute you, Terry.

Not made by Paterson then :D Did you have your own power station too?!
 
HoppyUK said:
Cripes! I salute you, Terry.

Not made by Paterson then :D Did you have your own power station too?!
Click to expand...

Not sure Patterson made lights then. Photax and Malham certainly did, as did Kodak and Johnsons of Hendon, all were supplied with spindly stands and no way of adjusting the reflectors with out suffering blisters. Photographic clubs had cupboards full of them and boxes of 24 number 1 photofloods, and served up toasted models every Thursday evening......

Electricity was relatively cheap in those days, but professionals did need a three phase supply to your distribution board to cope with the load. Or you turned out the lights for the whole street.

This is an example of a malham flood light http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-M...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top