LEDs? for constant lighting?

You could get an excellent Studio Flash Head with a separate halogen modelling light for less. Best of both worlds. Though I am sure that beast gives off some lumens ! Never used one but it looks intriguing and I too would be interested to hear from anyone who uses LED over traditional flash solutions. Anyone?

edit:
Thinking about disadvantages now, If the tube in your flash head goes (Flash tube or modelling bulb) its a pretty straightforward replacement of either of only 2 components. I would think that something like that huge array would be a different set of headaches should anything go wrong. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
At around £450 a piece, that's VERY expensive for what you'll get out of it as photographic light. You could buy a complete mid-range studio flash kit for that price, which is infinitely better.

Continuous lights give no where near the amount of light as flash. Take a studio flash head, say the Lencarta SmartFlash 200Ws at £106, it's got a flash duration of 1/1800th second, which means it produces at least the same amount of lights in 1/1800th of a second as 200W continous light would in 1 second. Like for like that's 360x more powerful that the 1000W light you linked to, even after we assume the seller's dodgy "60W LED = 1000W tungsten" claim is actually right. With continuous lights you will be forced to set your camera shutter speed to something like 1/60th or less, even after increasing the ISO, which means any slight movement will blur your photos. For still life photogragy this is less of a problem, with your camera sitting still on a tripod. But for anything else you will struggle. Pretty much all continuous lights are not capable of freezing moving subjects (or camera shake).

The other important thing about lighting is how you can shape them. Most continuous lights don't offer many options in that respect, and this LED one is even worse, i.e. zero option whatsoever. You are essentially stuck with a largish light source which I guess produces a rather soft light. If you ever want to introduce shadows or highlights again you'll be stuck.

Don't be afraid of flash, with modern digital cameras all you need is a few hours' of trial and error to get the basic hang of flash. It sets you on the right path. You can then learn and expand from there. This linked product is really designed for film makers, and overpriced at that!
 
Gazamonk said:
edit:
Thinking about disadvantages now, If the tube in your flash head goes (Flash tube or modelling bulb) its a pretty straightforward replacement of either of only 2 components. I would think that something like that huge array would be a different set of headaches should anything go wrong. :thinking:
Click to expand...

In which case you'll probably have to send it back to the seller in HK. Oh don't forget the duty + VAT. :nono:
 
That video shows exactly why they are useless, it has to be 12 inches from her face to barely light one side of her face. The background is barely lit
.
 
Jayst84 said:
They aren't useless. They're different. Think about what you need, and what's best suited to the task.

FWIW a chap you may have heard of called Steve McCurry has been seen taking portraits with LED lighting. ;)
Click to expand...

+1. They're ever increasingly used in video. But for stills, on a budget... skip it and buy flash, and learn to use them :)
 
Jayst84 said:
They aren't useless. They're different. Think about what you need, and what's best suited to the task.

FWIW a chap you may have heard of called Steve McCurry has been seen taking portraits with LED lighting. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes but you can get that effect with flash + you also have access to all the other advantages e.g. power,versatility,adaptability and too many accessories to mention which LED wont give you.

As for Steve McCurry well I am quite sure you are correct but I bet he uses it for a tiny percentage of his lighting work. He's a top well paid Pro who has the luxury of dabbling in all sorts of set ups and sparing no expense to get a particular look to a shot. The original poster (and myself) live in the real world and want the best gear for the best price to enhance our work, something that can be affordable yet last for many years and cover most if not all eventuality's and LED (at the moment anyway) is a million miles away from fulfilling that role.
 
where I was going with it was to build my own dimmable pannels.

the electronics are cheap, I was more worried about practicality.

e.g. for about £130 I can buy 200 10mm LEDs which collectively will kick out about 30K lumens / 2300W of light

so at least about the same as 3 600w flashes on full power.

they could be turned into 4 dimmable panels, powered by dc :naughty:
 
Last edited:
arwesa said:
where I was going with it was to build my own dimmable pannels.

the electronics are cheap, I was more worried about practicality.

e.g. for about £130 I can buy 200 10mm LEDs which collectively will kick out about 30K lumens / 2300W of light

so at least about the same as 3 600w flashes on full power.

they could be turned into 4 dimmable panels, powered by dc :naughty:
Click to expand...

No, even assuming that your maths are right, ONE SECOND of exposure would produce about the same as 3 x 600 Ws flashes produce in a very brief flash - so you would need some 6" nails too, to keep your subjects still:)

So, if you can increase the power by about x1000 to allow a 1/1000th second shutter speed instead of a 1 second shutter speed, you'll only be left with a blindingly bright light for your subjects to contend with, and the total lack of any means of shaping the light.

I'm sure that LEDs will have applications for still photography in the future, but the future is... in the future.
 
:thinking: so youre trying to say the power output of a flash is 1000 times 600w? ... I didnt believe power is measured over time like that...unless the'yre not actually rated in watts more a stated power dissipated over time?

Havnig looked at xenon flash ccts theyre high power thousands of volts hitting the lamp in a very short period to generate the flash.

Im still not convinced there isnt a way of making LED work. it seems like in recent times ther ehas been a slight melting of the barriers, Im betting the newer LEDs which have over 10x the output of older ones might tip the balance.

I keep in my mind thinking about the sun.... its a constant light and even on a dull cloudy day provides enough light to mean we can shoot without flash.. we dont need to move people closer to it to get the shot so there has to be an application for LED which is far closer to the subject relatively speaking.
 
Last edited:
arwesa said:
where I was going with it was to build my own dimmable pannels.

the electronics are cheap, I was more worried about practicality.

e.g. for about £130 I can buy 200 10mm LEDs which collectively will kick out about 30K lumens / 2300W of light

so at least about the same as 3 600w flashes on full power.

they could be turned into 4 dimmable panels, powered by dc :naughty:
Click to expand...

A lamp rated 2300W doesn not equal to 3x 600Ws flash heads. Three 600Ws flash would give as much light in its short flash duration as three 600W lamp would in one second.

Assuming those flashes are slow performers with flash duration of only 1/800th second, they would be equivalent to 3x600x800 = 1,440,000W of continuous lights!
 
Last edited:
arwesa said:
:thinking: so youre trying to say the power output of a flash is 1000 times 600w? ... I didnt believe power is measured over time like that...
Click to expand...
Roughly...
If a flash head is 100 Ws then the output during the very brief flash is equivalent to 100 watts during a one second exposure. That's why it's called Watt-seconds:)

In reality, it's much more efficient than that, because (say) 100 watts of continuous tungsten light would output about 2/3rds of its energy in the form of heat rather than light, so about 2/3rds of its energy is 'wasted' - unless you're feeling cold. Whether or not that ratio applies to LED lighting I don't know, but LED lights do get pretty hot when they're in an array.
 
arwesa said:
:thinking: so youre trying to say the power output of a flash is 1000 times 600w? ... I didnt believe power is measured over time like that...
Click to expand...

Flash is measured in Ws (Watt seconds) or J (Joules), not W (Watts).

1 Ws = 1 J
1 Ws = (one divided by the flash duration of a flash unit) W

Sellers who quote the power of their flash units in W simply don't have a clue of what they are talking about!
 
thanks, understand now... keep coming back to sunlight in my mind though... I guess Im just going through the same thought process many do of constant vs flash.

PS... Im obviously on a journey of discovery with my lighting skills...evidence here http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/200-PCS-1...385?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4cf00e5429 if anyone with lighting experience would mind commenting. given my lighting consists of a single 580ex no modifiers or stands at all as yet I did what I could, made some mistakes too...feel free to 'critique' :)
 
Last edited:
arwesa said:
Havnig looked at xenon flash ccts theyre high power thousands of volts hitting the lamp in a very short period to generate the flash.

Im still not convinced there isnt a way of making LED work. it seems like in recent times ther ehas been a slight melting of the barriers, Im betting the newer LEDs which have over 10x the output of older ones might tip the balance.

I keep in my mind thinking about the sun.... its a constant light and even on a dull cloudy day provides enough light to mean we can shoot without flash.. we dont need to move people closer to it to get the shot so there has to be an application for LED which is far closer to the subject relatively speaking.
Click to expand...

Yes flash units (all of which use xenon tubes) have an internal triggering voltage of between 800-1800V. Thats' the voltage needed to induce otherwise inert xenon gas inside the tube into a plasma state, giving off light. Word of advice is don't open a flash unit at home! Even after you switch the thing off charges stored in those capacitors could still fry you. :D

LED lights have become more powerful and cheaper recently, but they are nowhere near the power of flash yet. It's the film makers who see LED lights as a viable new alternative. They don't have the issue of freezing actions mid-air or getting blurry pictures.

The Sun is an incredibly powerful light source. But even so on a cloudy overcast day you will still have to reduce shutter speed to something like 1/50th or less to get the right exposure, assuming you work in ISO 100-200. Also you get crisp shadows on a sunny day, and soft light when it's cloudy. This is because the size of a light source dictates the softness of its light. And that size is relative to distance. The Sun is giagantic but millions of miles away, so to us mortals on Earth it's a bright dot in the sky, a small light source in other words. A small light source produces harsh shadows. When it's cloudy the cloud acts as a giant softbox, making the light source much bigger, so you get softer light.

This leads to the second problem with LED lights. Each LED is not very bright, so you need an array of them. This makes it a somewhat large light source, which removes you the option of ever creating shadows in your photography. In theory you can move the light source away from the subject to make it smaller, as in the Sun analogy, but in practice that would render the LED lamp useless because it doesn't have much power to begin with.

A flash unit on the other hand is a small and powerful light source, just like the Sun. You can mod it in all sorts of ways. Fit a big softbox on it and/or put it near the subject, you have ultra soft light. Fit a standard reflector on it and/or move it away from the subject, you have harsher light. If you want to highlight just a small area on the subject, fit a snoot or honeycomb on it. The possiblity is endless, plus you always get action freezing short flash bursts. With LED/continuous lights none/most of the above are possible. You are seriously limiting your options with just a largish light source and no light modifiers. At £130 those LEDs are not cheap either, and I guess you'll need to spend more to put it together. You can get a good pro-capable studio flash head complete with UK tech support and warranty (e.g. Lencarta SmartFlash £106, Elinchrom D-Lite 2 £189, etc.) for about the same price you paid for just those LED components from Hong Kong (not including VAT + duty).
 
Last edited:
arwesa said:
thanks, understand now... keep coming back to sunlight in my mind though... I guess Im just going through the same thought process many do of constant vs flash.

PS... Im obviously on a journey of discovery with my lighting skills...evidence here http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/200-PCS-1...385?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4cf00e5429 if anyone with lighting experience would mind commenting. given my lighting consists of a single 580ex no modifiers or stands at all as yet I did what I could, made some mistakes too...feel free to 'critique' :)
Click to expand...

BTW, sorry to say this, but those LEDs are not photographic-grade. They have a stated colour temperature of 8000K, which is actually more blue than white. If you light your subject with those lights you will 100% end up with blue overcast photos.

More info on colour temperature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

The other important piece of tech spec the seller didn't mention was the Colour Rendering Index (CRI), measured in Ra. Household lighting don't bother with this. The CRI dictates how accurate the colours are reproduced, i.e. bounced back, from the subject. To be photographic-grade the CRI needs to be >90 Ra. Anything less than that will make red appear orange, blue appear green, etc, in your pictures.

More to read on the CRI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index

Hope this helps you and others facing similar a decision. :)
 
my idea was to look at creating 3 or 4 lights for less than the cost of one of the studio flashes.

The idea is just that...nothing more at this point, but Im continuing to research..e.g. ive been pointed at a more expensive, but more reliable type of LED which each kicks out 3000 lumens, so looking at 10 of those do do the same work as 200 of the ones I posted earlier...

If Im not looking to 'freeze' motion then as you pointed out, I wont need as much light. :) theres also some new light technologies Ive been pointed at which will make interesting night time reading



Harry..thanks yes I realised the colour temp was out, but I discovered I could use a filter to fix that, however the newer brighter LEDs Ive been pointed at are fixed at 3000 to 5000K depending on which you order and 'photographic grade'....
 
Last edited:
Well it depends on how much light you "won't" need. If you are happy with shooting camera on tripod, and shutter speeds of 1/20th second then why not just use some desk lamps?

More powerful LED lamps are fine, as long as you add proper thermal protection circuitary and compatible heatsinks, otherwise they are prone to go "pop". Having said that even the most powerful LED lamp of today is NOWHERE near the power of the puniest flash unit. It's like saying I've travelled 100 miles closer to the Moon than you have, and at great cost.
 
arwesa said:
my idea was to look at creating 3 or 4 lights for less than the cost of one of the studio flashes.

The idea is just that...nothing more at this point, but Im continuing to research..e.g. ive been pointed at a more expensive, but more reliable type of LED which each kicks out 3000 lumens, so looking at 10 of those do do the same work as 200 of the ones I posted earlier...

If Im not looking to 'freeze' motion then as you pointed out, I wont need as much light. :) theres also some new light technologies Ive been pointed at which will make interesting night time reading



Harry..thanks yes I realised the colour temp was out, but I discovered I could use a filter to fix that, however the newer brighter LEDs Ive been pointed at are fixed at 3000 to 5000K depending on which you order and 'photographic grade'....
Click to expand...
I may be cynical, but in my experience 'photographic grade' is just a weasel that means "We won't tell you the spec and we don't even know it or understand the issues, but we do know that 'photographic grade' fetches more money"

A filter will of course effectively reduce the power.
 
Haha, agreed with Garry. OK I'll edit my words, you need light source that is 5500K in colour temperature and >90 Ra in CRI (preferrably >95 Ra).

It's precise now! Happy? :lol:
 
:thumbs: on the plus side even if I dont end up with a viable LED lighting option, this thread will teach me and others what to ask of the next lighting technology to come along :)
 
LED lightbanks and LED powered fresnels are on the increase, and contrary to popular belief, can and ARE being used by photographers.

I posted a thread on here a short while ago showing Vincent Peters shooting with continuous lights, it was largely ignored though as most people simply won't accept it's possible to shoot people well with continous lighting. For the record, he was using HMI fresnels and either fluoro or LED light panels, can't remember.

I spent an hour or so this morning watching a documentary on Helmut Newton, and on it, you see him and his assistants using torches and handheld mirrors. How's that for a continuous vs flash argument...!

I like both....I will use both :D

They're all tools.
 
LEPs are looking interesting...CRI 95%, 5300K... used in aquariums to maintain plantlife etc.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
LED lightbanks and LED powered fresnels are on the increase, and contrary to popular belief, can and ARE being used by photographers.

I posted a thread on here a short while ago showing Vincent Peters shooting with continuous lights, it was largely ignored though as most people simply won't accept it's possible to shoot people well with continous lighting. For the record, he was using HMI fresnels and either fluoro or LED light panels, can't remember.

I spent an hour or so this morning watching a documentary on Helmut Newton, and on it, you see him and his assistants using torches and handheld mirrors. How's that for a continuous vs flash argument...!

I like both....I will use both :D

They're all tools.
Click to expand...

I guess he's either put up with slow shutter speeds or got a D3. :D
 
It's a joke. By D3 I mean good IQ at ISO 32000 or something. LOL
 
HarryL said:
It's a joke. By D3 I mean good IQ at ISO 32000 or something. LOL
Click to expand...

I was just asking what made you think that? I wasn't calling you out on anything fella.

What makes you think you need slow shutter speeds or crazy high iso for anything shot on continuous? It sort of proves my point regarding the lack of interest on the thread....it's a common misconception, the disadvantages of continuous are exaggerated occasionally and it puts people off
 
So, for somebody in his studio and knows what he's doing, what are the advantages of using continuous lights?
 
HarryL said:
So, for somebody in his studio and knows what he's doing, what are the advantages of using continuous lights?
Click to expand...

...You've dodged the question I asked you twice now...

Not a problem but I'm not gonna elaborate if you're just going to ignore me lol
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
LED lightbanks and LED powered fresnels are on the increase, and contrary to popular belief, can and ARE being used by photographers.

I posted a thread on here a short while ago showing Vincent Peters shooting with continuous lights, it was largely ignored though as most people simply won't accept it's possible to shoot people well with continous lighting. For the record, he was using HMI fresnels and either fluoro or LED light panels, can't remember.

I spent an hour or so this morning watching a documentary on Helmut Newton, and on it, you see him and his assistants using torches and handheld mirrors. How's that for a continuous vs flash argument...!

I like both....I will use both :D
Of course some people can do a good job with continuous lighting. It's the only light source used for movies and the still photographers on the old movie sets used nothing else, and so do many of the still photographers on the current movie sets but...

1. Not all photographers are equal, and the lighting experts on movie sets are true experts.
2. The old master used whatever tools were to hand and produced what was required at the time, but not everyone wants the 1920's Hollywood glamour style now, produced by fresnel spots.
3. Film talent are able to cope with the extreme brightness and extreme heat. And their MUA had the right makeup for the job and knew how to use it.
4. The top continuous lighting gear costs an unbelievable amount of money, requires massive amounts of power and creates a very real fire risk. The junk sold on fleabay doesn't compare, except for the fire risk.

They're all tools.
Click to expand...
 
LED lightbanks and LED powered fresnels are on the increase, and contrary to popular belief, can and ARE being used by photographers.

I posted a thread on here a short while ago showing Vincent Peters shooting with continuous lights, it was largely ignored though as most people simply won't accept it's possible to shoot people well with continous lighting. For the record, he was using HMI fresnels and either fluoro or LED light panels, can't remember.

I spent an hour or so this morning watching a documentary on Helmut Newton, and on it, you see him and his assistants using torches and handheld mirrors. How's that for a continuous vs flash argument...!
Click to expand...


Of course some people can do a good job with continuous lighting. It's the only light source used for movies and the still photographers on the old movie sets used nothing else, and so do many of the still photographers on the current movie sets but...

1. Not all photographers are equal, and the lighting experts on movie sets are true experts.
2. The old master used whatever tools were to hand and produced what was required at the time, but not everyone wants the 1920's Hollywood glamour style now, produced by fresnel spots.
3. Film talent are able to cope with the extreme brightness and extreme heat. And their MUA had the right makeup for the job and knew how to use it.
4. The top continuous lighting gear costs an unbelievable amount of money, requires massive amounts of power and creates a very real fire risk. The junk sold on fleabay doesn't compare, except for the fire risk.

That's why I and most other people recommend flash
 
Last edited:
Mahoneyd187 said:
...You've dodged the question I asked you twice now...

Not a problem but I'm not gonna elaborate if you're just going to ignore me lol
Click to expand...

What question? You mean why I think he used slow shutter speeds or high ISO? Well I thought I've explained that in good detail in my posts earlier in this thread. Say you want pin-sharp details and shoot F5.6+, the light is not very bright, what else would you do apart from putting up with pitch black photos?

BTW I haven't watched that video you mentioned.
 
Hey Garry,

Let me address a few of them points.

Continuous is "what you see is what you get", in my opinion that suits a beginner down to the ground. Painting with light, in real time, with light you can actually see the effects of, modelling lights aren't the same.

I don't shoot hollywood glamour, neither do most of my favourite photographers. Vincent Peters, Helmut Newton, Ellen Von Unwerth etc. To suggest only hollywood glamour can be shot with fresnels, or any continuous light, is crazy, and it's just not true. It can do everything flash can, the modifiers can be the same, and light is light, you know that just as well as the next expert.

I'm sure I don't need to explain to you that most modern continuous sources are infact "cool" running. HMI, fluoro, LED etc. Tungsten (hot lights) is ONE source. You know that too.
 
HarryL said:
What question? You mean why I think he used slow shutter speeds or high ISO? Well I thought I've explained that in good detail in my posts earlier in this thread. Say you want pin-sharp details and shoot F5.6+, the light is not very bright, what else would you do apart from putting up with pitch black photos?

BTW I haven't watched that video you mentioned.
Click to expand...

I hadn't looked at your previous posts, and evidently I'm afraid to say you must not know much about what's on offer for continuous lighting....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/192478-REG/Arri_563205_12K_18KW_HMI.html

So this won't give me F5.6 ...seriously now.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
I hadn't looked at your previous posts, and evidently I'm afraid to say you must not know much about what's on offer for continuous lighting....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/192478-REG/Arri_563205_12K_18KW_HMI.html

So this won't give me F5.6 ...seriously now.
Click to expand...

Mahoneyd187 said:
I hadn't looked at your previous posts, and evidently I'm afraid to say you must not know much about what's on offer for continuous lighting....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/192478-REG/Arri_563205_12K_18KW_HMI.html

So this won't give me F5.6 ...seriously now.
Click to expand...

Haha. ARRI HMI! Price: $14,892.50. AND you are going to buy it? :lol:

People who will dish out that sort of cash won't be looking here on my posts blah'ing about basic difference between flash and continuous. I thought your point was
Mahoneyd187 said:
it's a common misconception, the disadvantages of continuous are exaggerated occasionally and it puts people off
Click to expand...
.

Yes seriously... :cool:
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
...You've dodged the question I asked you twice now...

Not a problem but I'm not gonna elaborate if you're just going to ignore me lol
Click to expand...

I've now hopefully answered your question to your satisfaction. Now your turn... :D

HarryL said:
So, for somebody in his studio and knows what he's doing, what are the advantages of using continuous lights?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top