Softbox lighting?

Continuous light is hot and uncomfortable for any model. Also the power is likely to be poor and the quality?

Flash is a better bet but yes more expensive.
 
Those are fluorescent, so no problem with heat, but the light you get is feeble. Really not bright enough.

If you want to have a go at doing things properly, on a budget, get one Lencarta Smartflash with a selection of white, silver and transluscent umbrellas, plus a reflector. Loads you can do with that, less is usually more with lighting, and good learning too. Change from £200, then build from there.

Edit: Smartflash http://www.lencarta.com/lighting-store/flash-heads/flash-heads-1/smartflash-200-compact-flash-head
 
Last edited:
My budget is £100. As im not doing it full time etc.. i don't feel the need to be paying £100s for lighting hence the continuous lighting.

So i can get softbox but a more powerful setup?
 
AboutLee said:
My budget is £100. As im not doing it full time etc.. i don't feel the need to be paying £100s for lighting hence the continuous lighting.

So i can get softbox but a more powerful setup?
Click to expand...

Lencarta Quad is the most powerful continuous light I know of - about six times more than the one in your link (4x 105w fluorescent bulbs). They're £125 here http://www.lencarta.com/lighting-st...olutions-1/cool-light-5lite-softbox-light-518

It has enough light for basic portraiture and the softbox is good.

Edit: No, none of those you've linked. A bare bulb and an umbrellla is useless - the light just goes everywhere. And you really only need one nice big softbox and a reflector for good quality solo portraits.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Quad is the most powerful continuous light I know of - about six times more than the one in your link (4x 105w fluorescent bulbs). They're £125 here http://www.lencarta.com/lighting-store/product-shot-solutions/product-shot-solutions-1/cool-light-5lite-softbox-light-518
Click to expand...

Surely not....?

I'll never get over why 99% of photographers presently think continuous HAS TO BE hot, weak, inconsistent etc. I appreciate the cheap offerings are ****, but the market and availability of proper professional continuous gear is massive.

Peter Hurley and Martin Schoeller? Fluoros baby...!

Vincent Peters.....HMI

Helmut Newton.....battery torches...

These guys should sign up to the TP lighting forum and learn a thing or two ;) lol
 
My apologies for assuming it to be hot Danny - I didn't look close enough - but the ebay lights at £75 are unlikely to be decent.... (as you pointed out)
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Surely not....?

I'll never get over why 99% of photographers presently think continuous HAS TO BE hot, weak, inconsistent etc. I appreciate the cheap offerings are ****, but the market and availability of proper professional continuous gear is massive.

Peter Hurley and Martin Schoeller? Fluoros baby...!

Vincent Peters.....HMI

Helmut Newton.....battery torches...

These guys should sign up to the TP lighting forum and learn a thing or two ;) lol
Click to expand...
Yes but...

The reason that most beginners go for continuous lighting is that it's cheap. And cheap usually equals nasty.

The Pros who choose to use continuous lighting are using it because they want to, and with a very few exceptions their gear is far from cheap.

For beginners, flash costs more than continuous lighting but is much better value.
 
It's the swooping generalisations on here some times that get me. I wasn't having a pop or being a dick I just try to input alternatives, as not everyone lives by flash, most of my gear is continuous now but I still have my bron gear, for now...so perhaps I've researched the continuous options more than most.

Flash is better is incorrect. For some people it is, for some it isn't, it's a working preference, as far as the output goes, the actual photograph, light is light it's what you do with it that matters.

Flash is more expensive...well with these kits, you're right, but best flash gear vs best continuous gear, continuous is waaaaay more expensive. A sad fact for someone like myself who prefers continuous lights when possible. HMIs can be mega expensive, they make Profoto and Bron look cheap
 
What about a softbox, light stand, reflector, yongnuo flash gun and a set of yongnuo wireless triggers?
Should be able to get that within your budget.
 
So im better of just testing flash to continuous etc.. Ive just brought a softbox kit from ebay and im going to trial that.
 
AboutLee said:
So im better of just testing flash to continuous etc.. Ive just brought a softbox kit from ebay and im going to trial that.
Click to expand...

If you have a low budget go for flash IMO, the Lencarta smart flash gets good reviews :)
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
It's the swooping generalisations on here some times that get me. I wasn't having a pop or being a dick I just try to input alternatives, as not everyone lives by flash, most of my gear is continuous now but I still have my bron gear, for now...so perhaps I've researched the continuous options more than most.

Flash is better is incorrect. For some people it is, for some it isn't, it's a working preference, as far as the output goes, the actual photograph, light is light it's what you do with it that matters.

Flash is more expensive...well with these kits, you're right, but best flash gear vs best continuous gear, continuous is waaaaay more expensive. A sad fact for someone like myself who prefers continuous lights when possible. HMIs can be mega expensive, they make Profoto and Bron look cheap
Click to expand...

You sure you weren't having a pop? And did you miss the OP's £100 budget? And the fact that he'd already turned down the Smartflash option?

And for what it's worth, regardless of price, I would always go for flash. It's easier to use and manage, more versatile, and I don't like the small pupils you get with continuous.

This side of video, flash is better. Full stop.
 
HoppyUK said:
You sure you weren't having a pop?.... flash is better. Full stop.
Click to expand...

Keep thinking that....

News flash, there are photographers at the top of the game, all over the world shooting with continuous lighting. Fair enough if YOU struggle with it, that's your talent, and your problem. To state something that categorically, you must think very highly of yourself, Sir.

Ps - now I'm having a dig. Getting annoyed with people on here stating OPINION as FACT! Not my heart attack....keep chatting rubbish I'm sick of this place now
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Keep thinking that....

News flash, there are photographers at the top of the game, all over the world shooting with continuous lighting. Fair enough if YOU struggle with it, that's your talent, and your problem. To state something that categorically, you must think very highly of yourself, Sir.

Ps - now I'm having a dig. Getting annoyed with people on here stating OPINION as FACT! Not my heart attack....keep chatting rubbish I'm sick of this place now
Click to expand...

Okay, then leaving aside that fact that high quality flash costs hundreds and continuous lights cost thousands, name the advantages for still photography?

Flash is small, compact and mobile, very bright and has a large output range with good colour, uses very little power, short durations for action stopping, can be fitted with every light modifier imaginable, can be battery driven... It's a long list.

Edit: as we've discussed before, top still photographers who use continuous lights do it for marketing reasons - it looks impressive and different, and they can ply their clients with bull that it will somehow make them look better. It costs a fortune, so it must... :cuckoo: That's a pretty good reason if you can pull it off, but it's got nothing to do with photography.
 
Last edited:
OP, yes, go buy a lencarta smartflash. They're cheap and people say good things about them.

Edit: as we've discussed before, top still photographers who use continuous lights do it for marketing reasons
Click to expand...

sorry Rich, but, especially when talking about top photographers, that's just a plain ridiculous argument.

There's a number of benefits to continuous lighting over flash.

For me, the most important is that it changes the photographer's relationship a bit with the subject - no flashing, less obvious when photos are taken - it goes deeper than the overall look of the light, and into what responses you can elicit from a subject.

No recycle times, if you really want, hell, you can pummel away at 9fps. Wouldn't ever really want to... but you can.

Flash freezes motion, yeah, and you get frozen and sharp images? So what. All a bit overrated at times anyway.

And (and I say this as an experienced lighting assistant) there is always going to be some benefit to the whole 'what you see is what you get' thing. You catch things that you might have missed otherwise.

And also, HMI and kinoflo light is just effing beautiful.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Okay, then leaving aside that fact that high quality flash costs hundreds and continuous lights cost thousands, name the advantages for still photography?

Flash is small, compact and mobile, very bright and has a large output range with good colour, uses very little power, short durations for action stopping, can be fitted with every light modifier imaginable, can be battery driven... It's a long list.

Edit: as we've discussed before, top still photographers who use continuous lights do it for marketing reasons - it looks impressive and different, and they can ply their clients with bull that it will somehow make them look better. It costs a fortune, so it must... :cuckoo: That's a pretty good reason if you can pull it off, but it's got nothing to do with photography.
Click to expand...

I don't remember discussing that, but I remember you expressing that as your views for why top photographers use continuous lighting. However, again, that's your opinion. Like how alot of people think photographers only use Profoto to look good, when the truth is it's worth the money.

Lol, arguing pros and cons when we're both aware of them is a little childish. I'm not saying continuous is better, read every post I've ever made supporting continuous and you'll see that. I don't object to flash, don't try and take it down that route either because that's obviously not what I'm saying. Both!!! I repeat....both!!!!! Lighting avenues have a place in still photography, to categorically state, with apparent self nominated authority, that flash is the best and continuous is awful, is a joke. Beginners will listen to you, anyone with more knowledge and sense should take your advice with a handful of salt.

You can't take pictures of people with continuous because they sweat, their pupils turn into pin pricks, they get blinded, blah blah blah. I've given examples of photographers above and beyond this forum on numerous occasions, and I don't see them struggling. Try it one time, with someone who knows what they're doing with it and maybe you can pick up some tips?

For the record I use both, crazy eh
 
itsdavedotnet said:
sorry Rich, but, especially when talking about top photographers, that's just a plain ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? I disagree (and I'm not alone).

There's a number of benefits to continuous lighting over flash.

For me, the most important is that it changes the photographer's relationship a bit with the subject - no flashing, less obvious when photos are taken - it goes deeper than the overall look of the light, and into what responses you can elicit from a subject.
Click to expand...

That's a good and important point :thumbs:

Edit: but thinking about it, on balance I think flash is less intrusive and less obvious. Using some continuous lights as I was recently (because I had to) the sitters all commented on how bright the lights were and took their positions shading their eyes, even though the meter said otherwise. When I tried it for myself, they were flippin blinding and the camera/photographer was completely hidden in total darkness behind them. It wasn't a pleasant place to be, and as I said before, the small pupils you get are not as attractive as larger ones you get with flash. I've never had a problem with a subject shooting with flash, from babies to grannies.

No recycle times, if you really want, hell, you can pummel away at 9fps. Wouldn't ever really want to... but you can.
Click to expand...

At the recent Canon show, the Bron guys were showing how they could keep up with the 1DX at 12fps.

Flash freezes motion, yeah, and you get frozen and sharp images? So what. All a bit overrated at times anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah okay, true. Though there are some strobes (mainly cheaper ones) that are no faster than about 1/250sec in real terms. I used that feature for a hair salon shoot once. But I use flash to freeze action far more often.

And (and I say this as an experienced lighting assistant) there is always going to be some benefit to the whole 'what you see is what you get' thing. You catch things that you might have missed otherwise.
Click to expand...

Nah, the best modelling lights (Profoto?) are very true to actual, and there's always chimping.

And also, HMI and kinoflo light is just effing beautiful.
Click to expand...

There you go - marketing reason. Or maybe it just makes it nice to use. Either way that's a valid point, but not a photographic one.

You're doing better than Danny, but flash still wins hands down.
 
Last edited:
Let's not get personal about this.

I accept that some very good photographers use continuous lighting, but as I've said before, they don't use the junk sold on Fleabay...
And they have stable electrical supplies that produce the same colour, shot after shot...
And they generally photograph people who aren't fazed by the uncomfortably bright lighting either...
Most of the people on this and all other forums are not experts. Their sole reason for thinking that continuous light is better for them than flash is usually that the sort of lights they're looking at are cheaper, although WYSIWYG may come into it too. Or maybe they don't know what can be achieved, modifier wise, with studio flash and only have experience of hotshoe flash.

People tend to have strong views about all sorts of subjects, often there is SOME merit in every view and every argument, but some of the things that people say are just plain rubbish. For example, just a few days ago I had an email from someone in France asking whether Marc Gouguenheim really did use a flash fresnel spot for this shot
wayang.jpg

Well, yes he did, but the person who asked said that she was asking because
"I ask this because I was told several times that, as strobes being much more powerful than hot lights, the barn doors, when strobe is used with this kind of fresnel spot, aren't able to control the massive output of light and therefore light tend to "dribble". In other words, no way to replace hots lights with strobes."
Click to expand...
Well, that's a pretty silly thing for people to say to her - light is light.

The OP asked about cheap lighting. IMO s/he should get a cheap studio flash head, like the SmartFlash at £106, the softbox will be extra. If s/he prefers continuous then there's the Quadlite at £125 including the softbox, it's a bit cheaper but it isn't as versatile. Will Cheung used the Quadlite for a still life shoot and I'm glad he likes it, but although I personally accept that there are people who, for whatever reasons, like continuous lighting, I tend to recommend studio flash because of all its various qualities.

When I started out as a photographer I had no choice, it was continuous or nothing - now that I have a choice, I choose flash.
 
:D love the BS that floats around forums. Dave's made very points, points I've made before over and over again, points I'm bored of making, to people too narrow minded to accept continuous lights aren't just limited to heavy ass hot tungsten fresnels and lekos, or flicking fluoro tubes.

I'm glad Daves commented, glad somebody else with actual experience is chipping in, hopefully others reading the thread will catch on that flash isn't the only way :thumbs: there's room for both and it comes down to working preference and our ability as photographers to utilise whatever equipment is to hand. There are more and more continuous products appearing, accessible HMI, led panels and led fresnels (look awesome)....they can, and will be used for stills.

There's no discussing with somebody who possesses all the "answers". If you disagree, you are wrong. Total nonsense.
 
Garry, I meant to ask you about that shot before, I'd seen it on your site.

That doesn't have smooth fall off characteristic of a fresnel, it looks focused like a zoom spot...? Any idea how it was done?
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
:D love the BS that floats around forums. Dave's made very points, points I've made before over and over again, points I'm bored of making, to people too narrow minded to accept continuous lights aren't just limited to heavy ass hot tungsten fresnels and lekos, or flicking fluoro tubes.

I'm glad Daves commented, glad somebody else with actual experience is chipping in, hopefully others reading the thread will catch on that flash isn't the only way :thumbs: there's room for both and it comes down to working preference and our ability as photographers to utilise whatever equipment is to hand. There are more and more continuous products appearing, accessible HMI, led panels and led fresnels (look awesome)....they can, and will be used for stills.

There's no discussing with somebody who possesses all the "answers". If you disagree, you are wrong. Total nonsense.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Garry, I meant to ask you about that shot before, I'd seen it on your site.

That doesn't have smooth fall off characteristic of a fresnel, it looks focused like a zoom spot...? Any idea how it was done?
Click to expand...
Not really, it was taken in a theatre in West Malaysia and the model is an actress from memory. From knowing that and looking at the shadow transitions, my guess is that he had the fresnel pretty distant.

It was shot on 6 x 7cm film but my guess, from knowing how Marc works, is that it was scanned and then pretty heavily retouched.

I'll ask him, if it's anything different to what I said, I'll update.
 
accessible HMI,
Click to expand...

grr, still not accessible enough :( Would help if there was actually a rental place even remotely in my part of the world, mind...

You sure about that? I disagree (and I'm not alone).
Click to expand...
Tends to be the mods rather than the lights themselves that gets admiration from clients ;) *pats his trusty 7 foot parabolic umbrella* Still by no means the greatest argument, ESPECIALLY with "name" photographers at the top of their game.

Nah, the best modelling lights (Profoto?) are very true to actual, and there's always chimping.
Click to expand...
well yes... all gravy as long as you're shooting in a dim studio. You never had that moment where you moved a reflector back and forth when shooting outside and BAM saw the perfect light? Same kinda happens with continuous light.
At the recent Canon show, the Bron guys were showing how they could keep up with the 1DX at 12fps.
Click to expand...
At minimum power. Yeah, even my 7B can keep up at 9fps... not quite the same though, and that level of machine gunning with strobes WILL get a negative reaction from your subject. Again, it's a relatively moot point - though then again, we've all had 'dud' shots where our flash failed to go off, so there is a bit of truth to it.

And also, HMI and kinoflo light is just effing beautiful.
Click to expand...
There you go - marketing reason. Or maybe it just makes it nice to use. Either way that's a valid point, but not a photographic one.
Click to expand...
nope, not a marketing reason. I mean, the light that comes out of them has a quality and nature to it that is both very.... nice.... and is difficult or impossible to replicate with flash. Kino flo especially, the falloff just doesn't behave quite like that from a softbox.


I'm not saying that continuous is perfect, by any means. It's a pain in the rear a lot of the time - vast amounts of power needed, things get hot and hard to move, problems with power control, modifiers, etc etc etc. But I'm saying that it should in no way be ruled out for photography. I use flash predominantly, but at times, when appropriate, do also use continuous. If I could get my hands on a HMI or two affordably, I'd probably use it more.

Yes, for budget users, buy a smartflash and learn how to use it. :)
 
Last edited:
Getting accessible buddy, I was offered a set of mint ARRISUN 12k HMI lamps with fresnel lens sets for £1200 each a couple of months back, they're £6000 lights. Even the little Lupo HMI fresnels that lovegrove sell look decent for close use :)

Compare that to Profoto pack and head and it's not far off, depending on your needs of course!
 
not bad, not bad... I'm fancying some LEDs at the moment, those frensels look seriously cool... The Lovegrove HMIs are neat, they're like... daylight dedolights :D

that and, profoto should totally make a LED light inside a D1 housing, would be sweet.
 
Last edited:
itsdavedotnet said:
not bad, not bad... I'm fancying some LEDs at the moment, those frensels look seriously cool...

that and, profoto should totally make a LED light inside a D1 housing, would be sweet.
Click to expand...

True that, I might hire one and give them a whirl soon.

It would be nice hey, have you used their tungsten or HMI heads yet?
 
nah - the profoto ones do look neat though, the cine reflector is like a normal zoom reflector and fits both their flash and continuous lights, pretty cool. edit: albeit insanely expensive. over 2k including some lenses but no head. Might find an excuse to rent one some time, pro tungsten air's only £18 a day from procentre.

Looks like their lights are basically built inside a D1, looks neat http://www.profoto.com/prodaylight/prodaylight-800-air#.TwG3eiO29aA Remote power control with profoto air is quite neat too, works well on their flashes (though why they didn't make it compatible with pocketwizards I'll never know...)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top