LEDs? for constant lighting?

Mahoneyd187 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Unless you spend a fortune on the top gear, very few modifiers are in fact available.

You're right about 'cool running' but the only cool running lights that are within the budget of most people (and especially beginners) is fluorescent, and if there are enough bulbs in there to provide usable power, it isn't possible to produce anything other than relatively soft light, because small modifiers can't be fitted to them.

And the lights lack power, lack adjustability and are uncomfortably bright for the victims subjects. My view is that the continuous lights sold for beginner use (fleabay) have no advantages whatever except price. And price turns out not to be an advantage if people end up throwing them away when they find out that they should have chosen flash
 
HarryL said:
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 .

Yes seriously... :cool:
Click to expand...

Twist it all you want, you made a blanket statement that continuous can't even get you a sharp f5.6 exposure. I took the **** and posted a link to the extreme.

A 1kw second hand mole richardson fresnel will get you to F5.6, and you can get them 2nd hand off ebay for about £250 :thumbs:

I'm not gonna mix my words, you don't know what you're talking about fella :thumbs:
 
Garry Edwards said:
Unless you spend a fortune on the top gear, very few modifiers are in fact available.

You're right about 'cool running' but the only cool running lights that are within the budget of most people (and especially beginners) is fluorescent, and if there are enough bulbs in there to provide usable power, it isn't possible to produce anything other than relatively soft light, because small modifiers can't be fitted to them.

And the lights lack power, lack adjustability and are uncomfortably bright for the victims subjects. My view is that the continuous lights sold for beginner use (fleabay) have no advantages whatever except price. And price turns out not to be an advantage if people end up throwing them away when they find out that they should have chosen flash
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bigging up fleabay tungsten offerings. I just don't agree that continuous isn't suitable for people, because it is, of course it is. As you said the moving image industry has put up with them for years.

HMIs don't have to be that expensive, even lovegrove sells Lupo HMI lamps for £800 I think, they're getting cheaper.

There's no definitive answer, I'm not here saying "FLASH CAN'T BE USED FOR PEOPLE", I can see the advantages from both sides. Others can't, I came into the thread to try and enlighten others as to the fact that there are options, though expensive, for good continuous gear, and that the prices of this tech are on the way down. We're already seeing cheaper and decent alternatives to kino-flos.

I'm not dissing flash, let's get that straight.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Twist it all you want, you made a blanket statement that continuous can't even get you a sharp f5.6 exposure. I took the **** and posted a link to the extreme.

A 1kw second hand mole richardson fresnel will get you to F5.6, and you can get them 2nd hand off ebay for about £250 :thumbs:

I'm not gonna mix my words, you don't know what you're talking about fella :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Okay, £250 2nd hand off flebay. So for photography, which is what we are talking about here, how is that better than studio flash which you can buy a good PAIR of them NEW for under £300? Fine, I don't now what I'm talking about. So enlighten me, exactly what continuous lights can do and flash can't. You've too dodged my question twice now. Don't mention WYSIWYG, people overcome that quicker than you think. We might as well walk all day because learning to drive takes time.

Edit:
Calm down mate. There are better things to get ****ed for. :lol:
 
Last edited:
HarryL said:
Okay, £250 2nd hand off flebay. So for photography, which is what we are talking about here, how is that better than studio flash which you can buy a good PAIR of them NEW for under £300? Fine, I don't now what I'm talking about. So enlighten me, exactly what continuous lights can do and flash can't. You've too dodged my question twice now. Don't mention WYSIWYG, people overcome that quicker than you think. We might as well walk all day because learning to drive takes time.

Edit:
Calm down mate. :lol:
Click to expand...

Again, you aren't knowledgable enough with the gear you're making comparisons with. A Mole Richardson lamp is a solid, tried and tested, legendary unit, a chunk of heavy ass metal, you could play football with the thing and it'd still work. 2x flash heads for £300 are entry level, bottom of the rung, plasticy, probably chinese built rubbish.

Continuous isn't powerful enough for stills, dude must be using a D3 at 1,000,000 ISO.

Funny that....he's using a film camera. He must be crazy...hot, old, blinding, fresnel lights, a low tech, manual film camera, and he's shooting for Vogue. He must be crazy, and an idiot to match.

Your question is a sarcastic one. Or if it's genuine, you have no insight to judge the advantages for yourself, and will just poo poo any response I give, so what's the point.

PS, lets see some shots so you can show me what flash is doing for you :)
 
I don't see any merit in continuous light for serious still photography, unless it's cheap (like Lencarta's fluorescent Quads). I would submit that for pros who use it, it's a marketing gimmick for impressionable clients that don't know any better ;)

Flash just has effortless power and lots of control over both brightness and light shaping - and it's pretty cheap too. Modelling bulb shows you what's going on.

There's another thing too, that I rediscovered using the Lencarta Quads recently, something I'd forgotten about since using tungsten. When you're in a darkened studio, they appear incredibly bright to the naked eye, even if they're actually not that bright according to the light meter. The subject's pupils close up small and I genuinely don't think this looks anything like as good as big, dark pupils. It's all in the eyes, after all.

Any continuous light source that was as bright as flash or daylight in the studio would be flippin blinding. But LEDs certainly have a future, being bright, cool running, low compsumption etc. They're already being used as low consumption modelling lights in battery powered studio flash, perfect for that.
 
HoppyUK said:
I don't see any merit in continuous light for serious still photography, unless it's cheap (like Lencarta's fluorescent Quads). I would submit that for pros who use it, it's a marketing gimmick for impressionable clients that don't know any better ;)

Flash just has effortless power and lots of control over both brightness and light shaping - and it's pretty cheap too. Modelling bulb shows you what's going on.

There's another thing too, that I rediscovered using the Lencarta Quads recently, something I'd forgotten about since using tungsten. When you're in a darkened studio, they appear incredibly bright to the naked eye, even if they're actually not that bright according to the light meter. The subject's pupils close up small and I genuinely don't think this looks anything like as good as big, dark pupils. It's all in the eyes, after all.

Any continuous light source that was as bright as flash or daylight in the studio would be flippin blinding. But LEDs certainly have a future, being bright, cool running, low compsumption etc. They're already being used as low consumption modelling lights in battery powered studio flash, perfect for that.
Click to expand...

Thats a complete guess and I personally suspect, nowhere near the truth. Even profoto have tungsten and HMI heads. I can see professional photographers buying them, not people who would be buying the cheap ebay offerings, and not moving image makers who already have ARRI or similar lighting rigs. But then that's a guess too.

Does every person you see in a movie have squinting eyes? A sweat on? Tiny pupils? They're all shot with continuous lighting.

I've had this discussion before and extracting stills from moving images, and it being the future. Most people said no chance, but funny how there are now several major magazine front covers as examples of this, with images extracted from RED cameras....like Megan Fox on GQ front cover and inside story. Or Lady Gaga in Vogue if I remember correctly. If that's the way things are going, you can say bye bye to flash completely.
 
Does every person you see in a movie have squinting eyes? A sweat on? Tiny pupils? They're all shot with continuous lighting.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the point I made earlier?
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.
Click to expand...
. I respect your right to your opinion and I do see some merit in your views - as you probably know, I have a history of lighting commercials and was perfectly happy to use the continuous lighting because of its quality, power, modifiers, because the talent could cope with the heat and blinding power and because there was no choice but I honestly believe that flash is a much better choice for most people, most of the time.

Of course, these are just honest personal views, Lencarta sells both and I have the luxury of honesty. The Lencarta Quadlite came top in the group test in Advanced Photographer (best performance and best value) so there's no vested interest here - but I still recommend flash:)

And the Lencarta Safari Li-on and the Elinchrom Quadra both use LED lights in place of tungsten modelling lamps, both are highly efficient and ideal for the job (the Li-on is much brighter but both are otherwise very similar) so I have nothing against LED's either - but I do feel that the technology hasn't yet matured enough for it to be used as a still photography light source. I'll be the first to say otherwise, once it has.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Thats a complete guess and I personally suspect, nowhere near the truth. Even profoto have tungsten and HMI heads. I can see professional photographers buying them, not people who would be buying the cheap ebay offerings, and not moving image makers who already have ARRI or similar lighting rigs. But then that's a guess too.

Does every person you see in a movie have squinting eyes? A sweat on? Tiny pupils? They're all shot with continuous lighting.

I've had this discussion before and extracting stills from moving images, and it being the future. Most people said no chance, but funny how there are now several major magazine front covers as examples of this, with images extracted from RED cameras....like Megan Fox on GQ front cover and inside story. Or Lady Gaga in Vogue if I remember correctly. If that's the way things are going, you can say bye bye to flash completely.
Click to expand...

It's you that's doing the guessing Danny. Apart from it being nothing more than fairly obvious marketing logic, it was explained to me by a pro when I asked about him kitting out with Hasselblad.

The logic is that if you're charging clients serious money, you have got to prove that you're better than Joe in accounts with a Nikon D90. So you have a camera that looks different, like a D3 perhaps, or even better a Hasselblad so you can tell them how much it costs, how many pixels it's got etc etc. Sitting on a huge studio stand of course (like Garry's LOL).

It'll be plugged into a bank of Bron generators at £10k a piece with 2m parabolics, and at the other end, an array of huge Mac screens ouputting direct to the client viewing area. You know the game, and most of it is bull.

Continuous lights are just a bit more of that, and they are undoubedly very impressive when you fire them up. And I'm not dissing any of this BTW - this kind of gear obviously works very well, I'm just making the point that there's maybe more to why some pros go for stuff than meets the eye.

BTW, movies often shoot at very low light levels, much lower than stills, and the big pupils thing is part of that. Hence the current obsession with full-frame DSLRs and low f/number lenses. I'm reminded of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon shot by candle light with a Canon f/0.95.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Isn't that the point I made earlier?
. I respect your right to your opinion and I do see some merit in your views - as you probably know, I have a history of lighting commercials and was perfectly happy to use the continuous lighting because of its quality, power, modifiers, because the talent could cope with the heat and blinding power and because there was no choice but I honestly believe that flash is a much better choice for most people, most of the time.

Of course, these are just honest personal views, Lencarta sells both and I have the luxury of honesty. The Lencarta Quadlite came top in the group test in Advanced Photographer (best performance and best value) so there's no vested interest here - but I still recommend flash:)

And the Lencarta Safari Li-on and the Elinchrom Quadra both use LED lights in place of tungsten modelling lamps, both are highly efficient and ideal for the job (the Li-on is much brighter but both are otherwise very similar) so I have nothing against LED's either - but I do feel that the technology hasn't yet matured enough for it to be used as a still photography light source. I'll be the first to say otherwise, once it has.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge whole-heartedly that continuous isn't for everyone, far from it, few people will gain much if anything from using continuous lighting.

I don't encourage people to use continuous really, I just don't agree with people that totally disregard it.
 
HoppyUK said:
It's you that's doing the guessing Danny. Apart from it being nothing more than fairly obvious marketing logic, it was explained to me by a pro when I asked about him kitting out with Hasselblad.

The logic is that if you're charging clients serious money, you have got to prove that you're better than Joe in accounts with a Nikon D90. So you have a camera that looks different, like a D3 perhaps, or even better a Haselblad so you can tell them how much it costs, how many pixels it's got etc etc. Sitting on a huge studio stand of course (like Garry's LOL).

It'll be plugged into a bank of Bron generators at £10k a piece with 2m parabolics, and at the other end, an array of huge Mac screens ouputting direct to the client viewing area. You know the game, and most of it is bull.

Continuous lights are just a bit more of that, and they are undoubedly very impressive when you fire them up. And I'm not dissing any of this BTW - this kind of gear obviously works very well, I'm just making the point that there's maybe more to why some pros go for stuff than meets the eye.

BTW, movies often shoot at very low light levels, much lower than stills, and the big pupils thing is part of that. Hence the current obsession with full-frame DSLRs and low f/number lenses. I'm reminded of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon shot by candle light with a Canon f/0.95.
Click to expand...

Do you mean you asked Jonathan about why he bought a Hasselblad, and he said because it looks better, lol. Some people actually benefit from this equipment, not everybody buys digital MF backs just because it looks good, or because it's fun to play with. If you're generalising the whole industry, and the whole use of very expensive "alternative" equipment, based on a friend who bought a hasselblad, then you are guessing. If you're not guessing then you're telling me fact, so you know, for a fact, that there are pros using continuous lighting as a marketing hype? People shooting top level stuff, on a weekly basis, who's shots are their livelihood, put it on the line, just to be seen to be shooting with a certain kind of light? Given the fact these people earn so much money they could buy and shoot with whatever the hell they want?

We're both guessing. Marketing hype or not, these images I love were shot with continuous. I've seen that they were. For me there's no better proof than seeing and believing.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Do you mean you asked Jonathan about why he bought a Hasselblad, and he said because it looks better, lol. Some people actually benefit from this equipment, not everybody buys digital MF backs just because it looks good, or because it's fun to play with. If you're generalising the whole industry, and the whole use of very expensive "alternative" equipment, based on a friend who bought a hasselblad, then you are guessing. If you're not guessing then you're telling me fact, so you know, for a fact, that there are pros using continuous lighting as a marketing hype? People shooting top level stuff, on a weekly basis, who's shots are their livelihood, put it on the line, just to be seen to be shooting with a certain kind of light? Given the fact these people earn so much money they could buy and shoot with whatever the hell they want?

We're both guessing. Marketing hype or not, these images I love were shot with continuous. I've seen that they were. For me there's no better proof than seeing and believing.
Click to expand...

You're guessing again. No, not Jonners, whom I don't think is speaking to me after I suggested that some posts here were a bit too obviously pro-Lencarta :D LOL

But I have to say I'm surprised if you've not heard it quite commonly said that there is often an ulterior motive behind why some people use different gear. I certainly would!

But there has to be a few assumptions made, because it's rare for people to own up honestly - I was just citing one such occasion, but it's backed up by a stack of circumstantial evidence, because in the case of continuous lights, I am not aware of any technical advantage whatsoever for stills, but there are quite a few disadvantages. You're citing photographers who shoot for Vogue. I've interviewed and had a few drinks with some famous pros that shoot for Vogue and, well, let's just say the whole thing floats on a raft of bull.

And I'm not generalising either, nor daft enough to suggest that Haselblad, Bron, Mac, continuous lights or whatever are not very good professional tools. Not for a watt-second.
 
HoppyUK said:
You're guessing again. No, not Jonners, whom I don't think is speaking to me after I suggested that some posts here were a bit too obviously pro-Lencarta :D LOL

But I have to say I'm surprised if you've not heard it quite commonly said that there is often an ulterior motive behind why some people use different gear. I certainly would!

But there has to be a few assumptions made, because it's rare for people to own up honestly - I was just citing one such occasion, but it's backed up by a stack of circumstantial evidence, because in the case of continuous lights, I am not aware of any technical advantage whatsoever for stills, but there are quite a few disadvantages. You're citing photographers who shoot for Vogue. I've interviewed and had a few drinks with some famous pros that shoot for Vogue and, well, let's just say the whole thing floats on a raft of bull.

And I'm not generalising either, nor daft enough to suggest that Haselblad, Bron, Mac, continuous lights or whatever are not very good professional tools. Not for a watt-second.
Click to expand...

There will always be sponsorship, there will always be pomposity, lol. I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't go on, hell, I've only gotta bring up the design industry and Apple and you'll understand that I know exactly what you mean.

However, continuous lighting just isn't an eliteist thing, not that I'm aware of anyway? I know Breisse is, but that's a whole other deal. From the experience I have, from speaking to clients and fellow photographers about it, it seems that continuous lighting is for some reason linked with inexperienced photographers, and not the other way around.

I have nothing to gain by saying I love continuous lighting, I'm not bigging it up, I'm not saying it's better than flash, I feel like I constantly need to stress this point. What I am saying, is that it CAN be used, and IS used for people photography.
 
wow... go away for a short time and trenches are dug and heated debate ensues..

What I wonder is going back a few years before we had powerful and convenient flash, what did photographers do? I watched a documentary the other week about at 90 year old american photographer, taking lots of architectural shots, famous people, film stars etc. he didnt benefit from off camera flash mains powered etc. yet the pictures were classics (Im told :lol:)...

a thought...perhaps in modern digital photography and the quest for super sharp we've lost some of the atmospheric grainy mood of traditional photographic art which we quite often put back into our pictures pp using software?.. so perhaps if we are setting out for something thats not clinical there is space for the natural, coming off camera because we dont actually WANT/NEED to see evey pore? e.g. I took some pics and posted for comment at my lads school concert... I was shooting without flash, only school stage lighting, at shuter about 50-100 f5.6 iso 800 image quality was a bit grainy, but that didnt make a damn bit of difference, resulting shots are now all over the kids facebook pages and I have rep as a 'cool' photographer.... I got the image quality I hoped and managed to create the feel that I wanted...surely thats what its about?

If a panel of LEDs or other suitable light source produces a soft light thats at a known consistent temp I can set my camera and crack on as long as I can get the type of image I want...and given the panel is soft I can probably move it much closer than I would ever move a flash at full power...so perhaps its not as straight forward as simply flash is better... surely its if you are willing to work differently and can get the results you use what suits?
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
...well glazed over lads...I'll take that as a yes then
Click to expand...

Well Danny, you've guessed right! Well done. ;) But how does that relate to this thread? I haven't been pushing our products. :)

I own Lencarta and am a keen photographer. So I hope I'm welcomed here to voice my personal views on lighting and photography.

Lencarta in fact has the continuous QuadLite in its range, which has very recently came out "Best in Test" for both value and performance in a competitive review by Advanced Photographer against Bowens, Lastolite, Paterson and Interfit. I have nothing against continuous lights. But like you said, all lights are tools, and each has its own use. What I wrote in my posts to the OP are my personal opinions, which I hope I'm entitled to. :)
 
Last edited:
I've certainly noticed a lot more continuous lights in BTS vids of shoots. I'm wondering if at least some of that is because of the video. It's now very common (esp for Vogue etc) to shoot video and stills at the same time. If you can get decent quality stills from continuous light then it makes a lot of sense to do that.

There was an iPad version of the Christmas issue of Vogue last year and they were moving seamlessly from video to stills. That would be a lot harder with flash. So yes, on at least one occasion Testino has shot Vogue pics with "hot" lights.

As for using gear to impress the client. Yep, been there, got the T shirt. I mean if you set the lights right and are only shooting for web then a phone is entirely adequate. Didn't Bailey dupe up his 35mm negs onto MF so that Vogue would accept them?
 
Last edited:
And the Lencarta Safari Li-on and the Elinchrom Quadra both use LED lights in place of tungsten modelling lamps, both are highly efficient and ideal for the job (the Li-on is much brighter but both are otherwise very similar) so I have nothing against LED's either - but I do feel that the technology hasn't yet matured enough for it to be used as a still photography light source. I'll be the first to say otherwise, once it has.
Click to expand...

What's being used for modelling lamps is pretty irrelevant, they're basically just a torch stapled into the head.

I think you'll find that Kirk Tuck has just published a book on using LED lights for photography. For many, many types of portraiture, it is very suitable, right now, with very little money's worth.

I've used a £30 video light several times for photos, and kino flo, dedo and arri lights even more. There are significant downsides, yes, and I've invested in flash for the majority of my work - but believe you me, with the MASSIVE convergence and simultaneous shoots that we're seeing now between stills and video, continuous light, specifically LED, is going to make a big mark on the industry in the next few years.

Flash is still king, yes, and ALWAYS will be for freezing motion - but anyone who doesn't learn to embrace continuous as well (and I'm talking commercial photographers here, not family portrait snappers) is going to get left behind.
 
From my sources, the main reason why Profoto launched tungsten/HMI lights in 2010 was to tap into the photographer-and-now-photographer/videomaker customer base. They are following a new trend set by the advent of HD DSLRs, with a tide of people venturing into film making, people who mostly shot only stills in the past. These are Profoto's customers that Profoto doesn't want to lose to anybody else, e.g. ARRI. For the same reason I wouldn't be surprised if Elinchrom rolls out something similar in the coming months.

Therefore, in my opinion, Profoto's new continuous lights are mainly designed for motion pictures. There might be people who use them for still photography just as well, but I doubt if continuous lights carry a lot of advantages over flash. This is the point I've been keep trying to make in this thread. Continuous lights have its purposes, very useful for film making, somewhat less useful for photography. For somebody buying his first photographic studio kit, personally I would recommend a good, entry-level flash unit anyday. Since we are talking about amateur/beginners here, HMIs don't come into this equation and hence I didn't mention it.
 
HoppyUK said:
No, not Jonners, whom I don't think is speaking to me after I suggested that some posts here were a bit too obviously pro-Lencarta :D LOL
Click to expand...

No. I'm not speaking to you because you appear to have me confused with a cricket commentator.

In the words of Mr Rascal* - "that's not my name". ;)


-----
* Yes I know it was the Ting Tings but

1. I happened to hear Dizzy Rascal's acoustic version first and
2. It's much better
 
JonathanRyan said:
No. I'm not speaking to you because you appear to have me confused with a cricket commentator.

In the words of Mr Rascal* - "that's not my name". ;)
Click to expand...

:D
 
I make tiles and this is for my website.
is it any good as a shot? would flash make it better? I would really like to know as its the best I am getting and the colour side of things is spot on. I have had great results with tungsten and now flourescent with high CRI (90 +)

I cannot understand why it is better to take pics with a flash which you can't see until you look at the picture as opposed to lighting a shot exactly as you want it and then taking the picture.
I am no photographer and I do get confused with this subject. I am even considering using candles for some tile product shots and LED lighting looks promising to me so that shows you where I am at.

Why is everything except flash such hard work to talk about
 
Tools are tools, and continuous lights are just another tool in the box. In the right scenario, in the right hands, access to these tools are really useful. I carry a LED torch with me to weddings, and sometimes use it as a fill light, damn useful, and very fast to use too. I also have a range of flash options I use too, and a range of reflectors and the like. Shot by shot, I just select the best tool available to me for the shot. If that means car headlights and torches, then that's what I use

Continuous lights are not such a alien concept. We have the sun outside, we have street lights and ambient lighting. The real question is when do you decide to use flash instead of ambient, or is your shoot needing such control that you work in a studio environment with no ambient, and every light source is added by the photographer

The only reason we are now having this discussion is because there are a couple of relatively new light-sources that do not run too hot. I shot a wedding in a marquee done out like a nightclub recently, The lighting guy was telling me that ALL of his lights were led, and I can tell you that the display was pretty damn impressive

54.jpg


Those big (in this case green) lights in the ceiling individually have an array of many colour LED's in them, the lighting tech could use them to track, change colour (any colour he wanted) strobe and the like, and one of these lights was bright enough to light a single subject perfectly in the dark

51.jpg

Same wedding, with some light painting from a monster torch (and some help from the existing lights)

23.jpg

Same wedding using flash

As I said, its horses for courses, they are all tools, all useful and all can be used
 
Last edited:
I don't post much in the forums - too busy with other nitty gritties that're hitting the door everyday. But in the future I will only post under this "official" name, so hopefully I can be a bit freer in taking part in any discussions about Lencarta.
 
Steve T said:
I make tiles and this is for my website.
is it any good as a shot? would flash make it better? I would really like to know as its the best I am getting and the colour side of things is spot on. I have had great results with tungsten and now flourescent with high CRI (90 +)

I cannot understand why it is better to take pics with a flash which you can't see until you look at the picture as opposed to lighting a shot exactly as you want it and then taking the picture.
I am no photographer and I do get confused with this subject. I am even considering using candles for some tile product shots and LED lighting looks promising to me so that shows you where I am at.

Why is everything except flash such hard work to talk about
Click to expand...

Flash is only made hard to talk about, because it is hard to see what is going on as it is in front of you. If I took your tile outside, in the sun and shot it, the results would be very predictable. The sun, continuous lights are pretty much WYSIWYG

All you see with flash is "a flash" and either a great or crap image in the camera

Flash is however very easy to comprehend, if dealt with in very small steps, step by step. Once the principles are out of the way, it all slots into place nicely

By the way, your photograph of a tile does its job well, it is a clean neat photo and if the colours are accurate, it is doing a good job and is fit for purpose - that is it is good enough to sell tiles. Yes you could have shot it differently, with crisper use of light, but in essence you will just go around in circles, ending up with many different yet good images
 
Last edited:
HarryL said:
Well Danny, you've guessed right! Well done. ;) But how does that relate to this thread? I haven't been pushing our products. :)

I own Lencarta and am a keen photographer. So I hope I'm welcomed here to voice my personal views on lighting and photography.

Lencarta in fact has the continuous QuadLite in its range, which has very recently came out "Best in Test" for both value and performance in a competitive review by Advanced Photographer against Bowens, Lastolite, Paterson and Interfit. I have nothing against continuous lights. But like you said, all lights are tools, and each has its own use. What I wrote in my posts to the OP are my personal opinions, which I hope I'm entitled to. :)
Click to expand...

"I have nothing against continuous lights"....but I'll laugh at you if you think you can get a sharp shot out of it....

Av a laugh.

You stock a cheap continuous light solution, probably not much different from some of the eBay offerings in question. It makes sense for you to push flash photography, on a forum that has an active Lencarta influence.

Strange how your response was somewhat more corporate, and well structured this time. Feel caught out do we? Kiss kiss
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
"I have nothing against continuous lights"....but I'll laugh at you if you think you can get a sharp shot out of it....

Av a laugh.

You stock a cheap continuous light solution, probably not much different from some of the eBay offerings in question. It makes sense for you to push flash photography, on a forum that has an active Lencarta influence.

Strange how your response was somewhat more corporate, and well structured this time. Feel caught out do we? Kiss kiss
Click to expand...

I'm not being corporate, especially not when I'm using my private username. It's just my writing style, writing to people with respect and appreciate that everyone has something to offer. For record you can look at my earliest posts in this thread.

The Quadlite sells for £125 each and the SmartFlash with its costly flash tube and flash capacitors £106. So I don't see your logic in accusing me of pushing flash photography for private gain.

I want to say again and for the last time here, I have nothing against continuous lights, they have their uses. But for photography they are just not as flexible as flash. This is something many others here have also agreed, yourself included at a later stage. I was writing to the OP who was clearly not in the market for HMI lights, so maybe I've generalised a bit on continuous lights and took HMI out, but I did say continuous lights in my generalised sense is okay with camera on tripod shooting still life. So your simplication is, well, just too simple. At the end of the day though, I still fail to see what you are fuming about, so much that it's worth calling people names and generally act in the way you did. I feel very sorry.

This is my last post on this thread.
 
Interesting thread.
Continuous lights have a place in photography, usually where you want to set deliberate lighting. Most large studios with infinity walls that take vehicles use continuous lights, usually With the photographer directing assistants to the placing of the lights. It's much quicker to get exactly the result you need.
However, the amount of wattage of lighting used means it gets very hot quite quickly.

I've used some of the large led litepanels for recording interviews in a small room that previously we'd used a couple of 1k lights. We rented them in as a test and whilst we needed more/ larger panels, the lighting worked fine and the lack of heat made them great. The more expensive ones just plug together and carry power through them.
Don't get me Wong, I love studio flash. I find it great to use, but continuos lighting has it's place also.
 
Thanks for that Richard, I think I must give flash a go, just so as I can evaluate what I'm doing at the moment. I will be interested to see any differences in colour reproduction techniques. At the moment I control the ambient light via good quality fluorescent bounced off a white ceiling/ grey walls, in a smallish area which is sterile of any other light source and just add glints or reflection.
That seemed to me to be the obvious way to do it when I started.

Perhaps I should have a word with that Lenny Carter bloke who sells all that cheapo stuff...:)
 
Lencarta said:
I'm not being corporate, especially not when I'm using my private username. It's just my writing style, writing to people with respect and appreciate that everyone has something to offer. For record you can look at my earliest posts in this thread.

The Quadlite sells for £125 each and the SmartFlash with its costly flash tube and flash capacitors £106. So I don't see your logic in accusing me of pushing flash photography for private gain.

I want to say again and for the last time here, I have nothing against continuous lights, they have their uses. But for photography they are just not as flexible as flash. This is something many others here have also agreed, yourself included at a later stage. I was writing to the OP who was clearly not in the market for HMI lights, so maybe I've generalised a bit on continuous lights and took HMI out, but I did say continuous lights in my generalised sense is okay with camera on tripod shooting still life. So your simplication is, well, just too simple. At the end of the day though, I still fail to see what you are fuming about, so much that it's worth calling people names and generally act in the way you did. I feel very sorry.

This is my last post on this thread.
Click to expand...

Your first reply to me, and your ensuing posts, were essentially mocking me. Your lack of technical knowledge and awareness of other brands and options showed you up, and made you look silly. You were all too happy to talk casually until I recognised your name, just read the difference in the posts yourself. I'm sure others can see it.

I'm glad you have Garry as a technical consultant, and I'm glad you use someone like Jonathan in another customer facing role, with the courses, because it's apparent to me that although you seem to be able to run a business, these may be two areas, you're not all that hot on.

Take HMI out of the equation if you want, there are still other light sources that produce more than enough power to shoot people. Again, showing lack of understanding in these areas.

I started with an honest question, why do you think you need a slow shutter or high iso to shoot with continuous. You took the genuine question in another direction with a smart ass response, which you couldn't back up, because you don't know what you're talking about.

To the OP. Best way to try these things, hire them. Give them a go for yourself before committing to a system. :)
 
thanks for remembering me :p

Im just looking at flashes at the moment. Im going to buy a few to do basics for now and they will give me portability I cant get with studio ones (and yes I know about the lencarta portables)... Im meaning everything in a rucksack portable.

going to have to start a different thread about that anyway.
 
arwesa said:
thanks for remembering me :p

Im just looking at flashes at the moment. Im going to buy a few to do basics for now and they will give me portability I cant get with studio ones (and yes I know about the lencarta portables)... Im meaning everything in a rucksack portable.

going to have to start a different thread about that anyway.
Click to expand...

Lol I'll stay away from it so I don't ruin it.

I assume you mean speedlights? Good place to start :)

Best of luck with whatever you chose
 
We all know I'm trying to flog an LED panel in the classifieds, right?
 
arwesa said:
not going to give up on the LED LEP constant lighting ;)
Click to expand...

You shouldn't give up, everybody should try and have an awareness of new technology and advances in lighting. These are the kind of panels I had in mind

http://www.videogear.co.uk/lighting/led-lights/cat_260.html?page=0

They stock cheap entry level tungsten stuff too

http://www.videogear.co.uk/lighting/tungsten-lights/cat_232.html?page=0

Using something like a fresnel doesn't mean you only want to use flood, or spot, it's not difficult to use flags, diffusion panels etc to replicate the effects of something like a softbox. Even with flash, for full body shots sometimes I use a 6ftx4ft diffusion panel I made with plastic waste pipe and diffusion material, or bounce off of a v-flat. Don't let anyone tell you continuous light can't be utilised with modifiers because it's BS.

:wave:
 
Broncolor have just updated their mobilite head and it now uses LED's instead. I thought it was very good, and it had an adaptar to plug into mains so it could be used as a constant light source also. best thing about it is you wont have to worry about blowing bulbs/flash tubes.

First couple of shots on my flickr were taken using this setup if you wanna have a look. The Montana Location ones :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top