Jump to content

Constant lighting vs. studio flash?


Recommended Posts

I've always shot with on-camera flash (bracket), or a Q on a light

stand, or with Dyna-lites (w/softbox or umbrellas or barndoors, or

whatever). At the expo in NY recently, I got into some interesting

conversations regarding the use of constant lighting (Lowel lights,

to be specific).

 

I know that one disadvantage when working with human subjects is that

the set can get pretty hot, but is that always the case and are there

other advantages to constant lighting that I am missing? I'll do

some more research, of course, but I always appreciate the comments I

get here. I consider this as part of my research, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I went to the same show with the intention of buying either Profoto flash equipment or continuous lights. I spoke with manufacturer reps at the show and with two lighting technicians I know who make their living from film, video and still photography.

 

I decided to purchase continuous lights. This decision was not based on cost. By the time I bought lights, stands and other paraphernalia the cost of the continuous lights was about the same as the Profoto package. Some items, such as softboxes designed to handle tungsten lamps, are quite pricey when compared to equialents for flash.

 

I bought continuous lights for four reasons. I feel comfortable using tungsten because I was involved in theatrical lighting in university. I liked the fine focusing and build quality of the brand of lights that I settled on. The still photography project for which the lights were purchased is likely to evolve into a video production, in which case it seems to make sense to start with continuious lights from the beginning. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I like the fact that you know, with continuous lights, exactly what the light and shadows look like, whereas with modeling lights, you can get only an approximation.

 

One argument against continuous lights is that they generate heat. The people who make this argument have a talent for neglecting to mention that a strobe fixture with a 250w modeling light in operation generates just as much heat as a 250w continuous light.

 

The other argument is that a combination of modeling lights and strobes, especially if you take multiple flashes, is ultimately cooler to operate. I believe that the significance of this argument depends on how efficient the continuous fixtures are (some are more efficient than others), how much control one has over the ventilation and temperature of the studio, how large an area one needs to light and whether one is relying totally on artificial light or on a combination of artificial light and daylight.

 

I concluded that the particular fixtures that I purchased will be about as cool as strobes and modeling lights having regard to the area that I need to light and my ability to control the temperature of the room. I ran a trial the other day and discovered that heat generation, at least for my setup, is going to be a very minor issue.

 

The project on which I am working involves making photographs of food. I'm satisfied at this point that the prevailing wisdom (namely, that tungsten lighting and food are an anathema combination) is wildly overstated. In fact, I discovered, in the course of my research, that some of the world's more successful food photographers use tungsten regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nadine,

 

Why do you suppose that film and stage directors manage to put on their productions without the actors squinting all the way through their performances? For some reason, Marlon Brando managed to yell "Stella" without looking optically challenged. Not to mention all those photographers who managed to take wonderful studio photos, before strobes came on the scene, of people who were apparently capable of keeping their eyes open when the shutter clicked. No red-eye, either :)

 

One of the unfortunate things about Photo.net is that we do not tend to get the benefit of the experience of film makers and videographers. One of the results seems to be a belief on the part of a lot of photo.net participants, raised to a level that sounds like an article of religion, that continuous lighting (invariably called "hot lighting") is BAD, and that strobes are GOOD. When I was in the process of making my own decision about whether to go strobe or continuous, one of the things that struck me was the views of the lighting technicians with whom I spoke. They brought a balance to the discussion about the pros and cons that you just can't find on photo.net. Personally, I'd love to see a photo.net forum about cinematography and videography.

 

Rich,

 

If you haven't already, have a look at Ross Lowel's Matters of Light and Depth. It's a very good book, and he is very careful to avoid touting his company's products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich,

 

You can do a lot of interesting work with hot tungsten lights. They are hot and though they might not make people squint in a portrait shot they will make their pupils very small. And they will be uncomfortable for the sitter.

 

Using hot lights for products is less of a problem. Using hot lights for food can be a problem depending on the type of food.

 

The largest problem with hot lights is that they are just not very bright. You can't stop motion easily and it's difficult getting a lot of depth of field without using long shutter speeds or high ISO films. And tungesten lights aren't compatible with daylight coming through windows unless you gel either the lights(which makes them even darker) or the windows.

 

I spent the last two days shooting stills on a film commercial shoot. The setups were photos of people, singles and groups of 2 or 3. I had a setup of my own on a large muslin background for head to toe portraits. I was using 2 4800ws strobe power packs, a large 72" softbox, a couple of grid spots and a medium 3'x4' softbox for a hair light. I had no trouble shooting at f16 at 100 ISO for the group shots. I needed f16 for the depth of field.

 

Over on the commercial film set next to me, main and hairlight were Kino-Flo tungsten balanced fluorescent light banks. Really nice, cool continuous lights. Background lights were tungsten Arri fresnel spots with cukes and gobos too hot to touch when they were on. The grips were using gloves.

 

I had to shoot ISO 400 1/30sec at f4.5 on the film set which was NOT enough depth of field for the groups. So I had to back up and shoot a looser crop to get enough depth of field on the group shots.

 

I've been shooting commercially for over 20 years. I have tungsten and strobe light and I can tell you that the strobe light is much more versatile. It's way more powerful, much cooler with consistent, cleaner color than tungsten. There's no comparison.

 

Using the 250watt model lamps on my speedotron strobes makes visualizing the light very easy. WYSIWYG works for strobe light just as well as for hot lights. It's not an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had exposure to both types of lighting so I suggest that you've said some things that are off the mark. When you talk about Marlon Brando, God rest his soul, and some motion picture productions, you're talking about the lighting being handled by very experienced grips and electricians and they still have accidents, people get hurt, shocked, suffer cuts, and they get burned.

 

Watching a finished take, is far different than being in the studio for the up to 20hrs it took to do maybe 2 pages of script, and during that time actors can/do have problems with their eyes/headaches, accidents walking into stuff because they can see for the lights.

 

When I do a portrait with strobe lighting, I may use two lights, after I've set everything up, I may only have one modeling light on(fan cooled) and things can still get hot, but not as hot as having several tungsten lights on, which will, if left on for long enough get BURNING HOT, now if you burn somebody, you are going to get sued, period. Do you have the insurance like some of these motion picture productions, so that if you get sued, you're not going to lose everything?

 

Leaving on continious light units long enough, without a serious investment in how you're going to cool everything/everybody off, is a miserable proposition, plus make-up folks to redo whoever will ultimately get drenched in sweat. If you've got all this figured out and you've made a commitment, then by all means, go for it, but you will have problems handling the heat, eyestrain, accidents, threat of electrocution, fires, if you don't have qualified people handling this stuff at all times.

 

BOTH types of lighting are dangerous, both have their problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use stobes mostly, but...

 

Hot lights are relatively cheaper and easier to carry around. There is the important "what you see is what you get" factor, which can save time and a lot of polaroid test film, especially in architectural photography. I would agree with RJ in saying that hot lights tend to be under-estimated. It's easier and faster to "fine-tune" hot lights for portraiture than it is for flash, even though some may argue that strobe modeling lights are good enough for pre-visualizing (I don't entirely share that argument). In that respect, hot lights are a better "learning tool" than strobes are, especially for beginer/intermediate photographers. Lowel has a great line of equipment, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'It's easier and faster to "fine-tune" hot lights for portraiture than it is for flash, even though some may argue that strobe modeling lights are good enough for pre-visualizing (I don't entirely share that argument).'..................................Then why do you use strobes?

 

Nobody is underestimating the advantages of hot lights, what is being underestimated is the potential for eyestrain, heat buildup, and the danger of serious burns, and if you burn somebody, believe me the portrait session is over. Anybody that has actually used these lights knows how hot they can get, they have serious disadvantages, which is why many folks use strobes, they're easier on the eyes, cooler, and a little safer than hot lights.

 

The folks who use strobes do it for a reason, not because they don't know about hot lights, like it's been suggested here, if hot lights were better, easier, and safer, everybody would be using them, and you wouldn't be able to give away a Profoto power pack.

 

What if your client walks in and can't stand an intense light shining in their face nonstop? A non actor/non professional who can't work past it? Then what do you do?

 

The real priority here is your client, not how easy and comfortable it is on you, but the person who is paying you, and you want to make things as easy and as comfortable as possible for that client, then they pass the work about you along to somebody else.

 

I would suggest to Rich Taylor that you if possible, rent both types before commiting to either one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good thing is that this may be the first time on photo.net that there is a serious discussion about this issue.

 

I am not making an argument in favour of continuous lights. I am saying only two things. First, participants in photo.net have a bias against continuous lights, which they insist on calling hot lights, that is not based on fact. With the greatest respect to Mr. Brewer, the only ting that he has said that makes sense to me, as someone who has also worked with continuous lights, is his statement that continuous lights, modeling lights (which are continuous lights) and strobes can be dangerous. Two nights ago, a lighting technician told me a story about an 18 year old kid, manning a very large HMI light, who did something that blew out the lamp. He was deaf for the rest of the day and he scared the living daylights out of the rest of the people on stage. These things happen, and such events are not inherent to any type of light.

 

Brooks has made the argument, referred to in my post, that strobes are ultimately more efficient. The truth of this assertion depends on many factors. I do know this. One of the reasons that I bought continuous light fixtures is that the brand that I purchased made a lot of sense, for me, in terms of construction, accessories and control of light.

 

This debate about what is better - continuous or strobe - is just plain tiresome. I think that it depends on what you are doing. In my case, I passed on a couple of 250w Profoto modeling lights in favour of a couple of 150w Dedolights. So far, it looks like I need a few hundred more watts to do what I want to do. We'll see whether that wattage comes from a Lowel Totalight and a softbox, or the window. Either way, I know, from doing a trial, that the Dedolights are going to do just fine. And the idea that they are going to burn down my studio space, or blow up, is just plain ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add something to Brooks's comment that one must deal with the "problem" of balancing tungsten to daylight when one is combining tungsten and daylight sources. The fact of the matter is that the same is true of strobe, for the simple reason that the temperature of strobe and the temperature of daylight are as often as not different. Whether one balances, and the degree to which one balances, is a question of taste and the demands of the project on which one is working. Any cinematographer or videographer can tell you this, which is one more reason why more input from the latter types of photographers would be a good idea on this website. There are limitations, altogether too evident in this forum, to the expertise of still photographers :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed possible to rig up a very effective hot light set that won't overheat your models or make them squint.

 

How much money ya got?

 

Ever check the prices of theatrical stage lighting? 'cause that, at a minimum, is what you'll need. Along with overhead rails, racks and various systems for positioning the lights.

 

Fortunately you might be able to buy some battered, nearly junked but repairable and usable stage lighting for cheap. Usually, tho', the community theatres running on a shoestring have already grabbed those, graduating from garage clip-on lights.

 

The same types of lamps, floods and spots, designed for the photo studio usually carry a heftier price tag. I dunno whether it's justified - they look like the same stuff to me. So I'd be tempted to go to the nearest theatrical supply house or well-supplied theatre and ask some questions.

 

You should probably also consider a good lighting board with dimmers and faders. For one thing it'll prolong the life of your expensive lamps. Illuminating up and fading down gradually is easier on the filaments than snapping the lights on and off. Also, being able to finesse the lighting from either a tech both or the camera position minimizes climbing to adjust lamp fixtures on the overhead rails.

 

By now, tho', you're seeing why so many photographers went to studio flash and abandoned hot light except for certain purposes. It's necessary for film and video. It's sometimes useful for digital. But it's generally a PITA for still film photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Then why do you use strobes?"

 

Because I shoot mostly daylight film outdoors and on-location and I'm assuming Richard Taylor is interested in a studio or home lighting setup. I'm not suggesting hot lights are preferable to strobes (although they clearly are in some cases), just pointing some of the advantages. We all know they get very hot and ought to be handled carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bounce Lowell lights similar to the Omni model into the Lowell heat resistent umbrellas. You get very bright, but soft light and subjects can sit there all day. Blue dichroics can be added or use tungsten film.

 

No flash meters, no broken chords, and you can see exactly what is going on. You will need a tripod. About 1/30 at f8 for iso 100.

 

I got started with this so I could use my Imagon and be able to focus at f8-11. The Norman set up tends to sit lately unless I am working with kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'And the idea that they are going to burn down my studio space, or blow up, is just plain ridiculous.'..............................I never said anything about hot lights blowing up, you've just added that, so I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.

 

I just don't care whether I make sense to you or not, I was addressing my responses to Rich Taylor as somebody who's used both kinds of lights, since he posted the original question, .......................as someone who's just bought his first set of lights, I don't think there's anything you can point out in what I've said that doesn't make sense.

 

What's ridiculous is bringing up Marlon Brando into this and whether he squints or not, and looking in your crystal ball to declare other folks biased against your assumptions about a set of lights you've just bought and have no experience with, and then justifying your assumptions with thirdhand information from somebody else.

 

As to Oliver Koning's comment about flash or continious lighting outside, they have HMI type lighting for outside, so both systems can/have been used by cinematographers/still photographers outside,and that isn't really an issue, again it's the safety factor and 'knowhow' in handling any particular lighting system that would be the concern I would pass on to Rich Taylor and anybody else considering these type of lights............again that you believe there's a bias out there against something that you haven't used is a wrong assumption on your part, folks out there will use the easiest system to work with, with the least disadvantages.

 

If you use this stuff and your wiring isn't up to handling it, you WILL set fire to your house, no lighting gear is accident/danger free, you have to more careful of hot lights, and if that doesn't make sense to you, you're just not listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RJ,

 

The color temperature difference between UV corrected flash tubes and daylight is miniscule. The difference in color temperature between daylight and tungsten lights in huge. There's simply going to be some filtration needed.

 

Last week I had a shoot where I needed to push light through a window from outside to inside the room. The window was in the view of the camera and the client wanted a splash of light on the back wall, through the window. Of course the sun was on the other side of the building so it wasn't going to happen naturally.

 

I positioned a strobe outside the window on a sand-bagged light stand and was easily able to simulate sunlight through the window and onto the wall while also recording the natural color of the scene outside the window. That would not be possible with tungsten lights because they're just not bright enough to overcome the available light outside the window.

 

I suppose I could have rented a 20K HMI light, ballast and a crew to set it but strobes worked beautifully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brooks,

 

The difference in colour temperature between light from a strobe and light from the sun on a fine sunny day with blue skies does not strike me as miniscule. Presumably, that's one of the reasons why Rosco and others make correction filters with several different mired shifts.

 

Do you think there's a difference in the quality of light between tungsten and strobes and, if so, what do you think the difference is? I ask because one of the posts above suggests that the quality of strobe light is superior. On the other hand, Steve Bavister, in his book on food photography, quotes one of the photographers who participated in the book to the effect that she likes the quality of tungsten light. Unfortunately, she does not elaborate on this cryptic comment.

 

This is as good a time as any to thank you for your lighting tutorials and very informative posts. Both are greatly appreciated.

 

Jonathan,

 

I don't claim to be an expert, I've specifically stated that I don't hold a brief for continuous lighting and I'm actually very curious about the pro-strobe argument. Don't take me so seriously. There's a reason for the use of :) in my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RJ,

 

On a sunny day with blue skies, if your subject is lit by the sun rather than just blue light in the shade, there is little difference between the color of strobe and daylight. If your subject is in the shade, being lit by the blue sky, there is quite a bit of difference in color temperature but tungsten light isn't close to either.

 

There are three primary differences that I can see between the quality of light of tungsten and strobe light. Some of these differeces are about the "quality" of light while others are more about convenience.

 

The first is the enormous difference in the amount of light between a 4800ws strobe (or even a 1000ws strobe) and a 1000 watt totalight. If you're shooting something that moves like people, a liquid pour shot, the head of foam in a glass of beer etc, a fast flash duration is always better than even 1/30th of a second with a continuous source. The ability to shoot at a tight f-stop of say f 45 on large format or f 22 on medium format AND stop motion at the same time is tremendously important to the still-life work that I do. Being able to use the slowest ISO for film and digital capture is another benefit of the power of strobes over continuous lights.

 

The second is the clean, consistent color balance of higher end strobes. There are some cheaper strobes, mainly monolights, whose color temperature changes as the power to the strobe changes. For critical color without the need for testing for the reciprocity of longer continuous light exposures, strobes are more consistent and easier to use. If you're shooting digitallly, avoiding longer exposure times and higher ISOs is as important for image quality as it is for film.

 

Third, is the very real difference in heat emitted by strobes versus tungsten lights. You won't necessarily burn your house down using tungsten lights just as you won't necessarily electrocute yourself using high-powered strobes. But S**t happens. Though it's not really very commonplace. You do have to be careful about burning your hands with a tungsten light that's been turned on for a long time when you change reflectors, soft boxes etc. And it's a good idea to let them cool down for a while before you put them away.

 

A 250watt model lamp on a strobe head will produce the same amount of heat as a 250watt tungsten lamp, but usually you'll be using a much stronger tungsten light of 500, 100 or even 2000 watts because you need a certain f-stop or shutter speed. It's also a lot cheaper and potentially safer using strobes in soft boxes and other enclosed modifyers than tungsten. Heat build quickly in situations like that.

 

Sometimes I do have a problem using my big honkin' 4800ws strobes when I want a wide f-stop and very shallow depth of field on a digital capture. I can use an 800ws channel for a single light and then dial it down 3 stops to 100ws but even that can be too much light for a low level fill. When that's the case I either use a ND gel over the light or, if a fast shutter speed is not needed, I'll use just the strobe's modeling lamps in the same softboxes, grids, etc just without the flash. Kind of the best of both worlds having strobe power and low level tungsten modeling light in the same lighting equipment.

 

I'm glad you like the lighting tutorials. Last week I was thinking of doing the theme on using hot lights. I do have several Lowell totalights as well as some DPs etc. But it was just too easy to post a theme on a food shoot I had done that week. Maybe in the future I'll drag out the extra scrims and light stands needed to shoot diffused light with tungsten and give it a try.

 

Enjoy your tungsten lights and get some strobes for when you need more motion stopping power and higher amounts of light.

 

BTW, those ProFoto strobes that you looked at are really nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allright peace, but let me say this, it's understandable that beginning and intermediate photographers(whatever those terms mean) might feel that using continious lighting would help them gain their bearings in terms of 'fine tuning' say a portrait, but you will gain a confidence and 'feel' for doing this that will eventually outgrow your having to 'see it' every time before you do it.

 

I've gotten comfortable and experienced with my strobes, use any piece of gear, and you will become used to it, comfortable using it, and you'll get a feel for what it can do,............I have an idea of what my strobes will and won't do at x amount of feet away from the sitter, at x angle, and with x modifier.

 

I'll ultimately check all this with polaroids, which I don't worry about saving because like the film used on a shoot, they're charged to the client. It's easier for me to use strobes, keep things cool for the client(and me), and have a polaroid back standing by, which I can use to verify not only the lights, but the operation of my other gear. Sure, you can 'fine tune' a portrait, and then start firing away, I've learned from experience that it's a good idea to verify that everything is working before doing the actual shoot.

 

Once you become comfortable with strobes, there's a subtle transition is how you view its advantages and drawbacks in comparison with hot lighting. Inside/outside, w/strobes, there's no problem w/color balance, they pack a 'wallop' in terms of the amount of light available for considerations of depth of field, and they're not on all the time, only when you need to shoot.

 

2K and 5k lights can cook a Turkey if you leave 'em on long enough, I would suggest to anyone considering these kinds of lights(particularly if you're going to use them at home) is to check out how much juice they'll be drawing(together/all on at the same time), and whether those specs will get along with your wiring and your junction box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always liked tungsten lighting, I was 'brought up' to used it because there were no alternatives at the time, and when the early strobes came on the scene I resisted them, using many of the above arguments.

 

<p>And, occasionally, I still use them, for example on those rare occasions when I need to use f64 on a large format shoot and my powerful strobes aren't powerful enough, or when I'm doing an architectural interior, where there is the same problem or where I deliberately want to use a long exposure to blur movement (e.g. people walking).

 

<p>But for most still life applications, although tungsten will work perfectly OK in terms of results, life is too short and I take the easy option of using strobe lighting, it's safer, quicker and easier.

 

<p>For people photography it's a no contest. As others have said, even low-powered strobe lighting produces far more light than tungsten, it freezes movement, it has consistent colour and it doesn't cause discomfort to the subjects.

<br>IMO it doesn't make sense to compare professional, high budget movie sets with a photography studio. There is simply no comparison in terms of expertise, staffing levels, equipment, safety, ventilation or anything else.

<br>And actors get paid for their discomfort and they get long rest periods. Apart from the techies, the only person who is working consistently is the Director - the actors spend most of their time waiting around, they normally work only for short periods of time.

<br>Portrait clients don't get paid and in fact they pay, so they are entitled to decent 'working' conditions.<p>

 

The argument that WYSIWYG is a valid one - but this is just lack of experience and lack of confidence. Any studio photographer (and I don't mean just professionals) will quickly learn to light without the 'benefit' of tungsten lighting.

 

<p>The argument that a 250W modelling light gives off the same amount of heat as a 250W 'photographic' light is partly true (not true when using over-run photoflood lamps) but it is still specious, because 250W is perfectly OK for modelling but completely inadequate as an actual light source. Put a little round figure on the end if you want to use a small-ish aperture or anything faster than 1/30th.

 

<p>When we used tungsten lighting for food photography we often had to use 'tricks' such as fake food because of the heat. In those days we could get away with it but ethics are much more important now and we need to photograph the actual products. Standards are also much higher now.

 

<p>In short, tungsten lighting is yesterdays' technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really good discussion.

 

I do think that the almost uniform condemnation of continuous lights is a little peculiar. For me, it is a question of horses for courses.

 

I have run tests on how much light I need for my particular project. I need to light a very small set. I don't need to freeze motion. I'm not worried about long exposures. The fixtures that I bought are noted for their efficiency. They are nowhere near the kinds of massive 2-5k watt fixtures discussed above. I may pick up a Lowel Totalight, but I don't see any need to use its largest compatible bulb, which is in fact 750 watts, not 1000 watts. The lights that I bought are widely used for still life as well as film and video production. Based on tests in my specific studio space, it is obvious that they are going to do the job and that they are not going to cause the kinds of problems touted by many people in this thread. Equally importantly, the fixtures lend themselves to very precise lighting and offer opportunities for precision that I have simply not seen in strobe fixtures except for some rather expensive stuff offered by Broncolor. They are also much more portable.

 

I am not suggesting that strobes are a bad idea. In many cases, they would seem to make a great deal of sense. On the other hand, last week a guy from Italy named Marco posted a rather amusing, technically proficient, photo that was made with the very same lights, with the very same wattage, that I intend to use. There are too many statements in this thread that are inconsistent with the reality of the photograph that he posted. Maybe people who have generic remarks to make about tungsten lights should have a look at the specific lights we are talking about, and their photometrics, and consider the actual application, before confusing apples and oranges. They might also have a look at Marco's photo and explain why it is deficient because it was made with continuous lights rather than strobes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RJ,

 

"I may pick up a Totalight, but I don't see any need to use its largest bulb, which is in fact 750 watts, not 1000 watts"

 

Not quite the case with Totalights, RJ. I have 2 Totalights, which are great behind scrims or if you need a wide wash of light for a ceiling or wall bounce. And they fold up into a very small package. And they're extremely hot to the touch when they're turned on.

 

They have 1000watt bulbs, not 750 watts though you can buy 750 or 500 watt bulbs for them. They are rated for 1000 watts though, in fact I bought them originally with 1000 watt bulbs. I bought them from Calumet in Chicago.

 

I can photograph them for you if you like because it sure seems to me that's the only way you might believe what I'm saying.

 

Here's the thing, RJ. I've spent a lot of time on this thread with you sharing my 20 plus years of experience lighting and shooting commercial advertising work. That's experience as a working professional, not a lighting salesman at a photo show.

 

I'm just trying to help Rich, the original poster, by giving him as much un-biased information about lighting choices so he can make an informed decision about what lighting to purchase.

 

I don't make any of this stuff up. When I mention that I have 100 watt Totalights, for example, what I mean to say is that I have 1000 watt Totalights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilarious............you were right when you advised.........'Don't take me so seriously.'.............I invested some time in this post for the benefit of Rich Taylor and whoever else is checking out this thread as reference material for when they decide they want to commit to a lighting system, whatever that lighting system may be. I've never had a problem sharing what I know.

 

So I'll take a little more time to put what all has been said here in perspective for their benefit, and I'll make the following observations, and then I'll be done with this thread, period.

 

If you take the time to read what everyone has said, it will be obvious to you, that nowhere in this thread has anybody condemned anything, nobody is confused, and they won't be unless they listen to you.

 

The problem here is that you read into what everyone else has said what you want to see,.................it would be an entirely different proposition if you've used continious lighting for a dozen years, and a like amount of time on strobes, but you have no experience to back up your predictions about what your future experiences are going to be with these lights.

 

The folks who are experienced in these lighting systems gave you and everybody else a valuable rundown on the good and bad of these systems, and I hope that anyone else reading this thread will benefit from these generous folks taking the time to illuminate their experiences and even their mistakes, if that happens then the time I've spent on this thread will have been worth it.

 

RJ, I hope this is some kind of troll/act, and that in reality you do intend to be careful with these lights as opposed to the uninformed arrogance you've displayed here, hopefully saving someone from having to suffer from one of your mistakes.

 

I'm gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...