Strobe vs. continuous lighting

[tzvih]

<p>With regard to shooting in-studio product shots (primarily jewelry and watched), it seems that it would be easier to shoot with continuous lighting as you can see the reflections and the light angles before you take the shot. With strobe lighting I need to shoot first, put the image on my computer and only then do I see if I need to modify my lighting setup.</p>

<p>Granted as I become more experienced I hope to develop a feel for certain lighting setups without needing to check the image to confirm. I was just curious if there were any other people that felt this way.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Just shoot tethered to your computer and you can see the result on the big screen 4.5 seconds later.<br>

But for jewelry and the like, it is possible to use continuous lighting because you can deal with the long exposure times you'll encounter.<br>

Get the book "Light - Science & Magic" to understand how light works and how to light shiny objects before you buy any equipment.<br>

Good jewelry photography is not trivial and requires lots of practice and experience to get it right. For high quality examples, look at the high-end watch advertisments in every issue of Time, Newsweek, etc.<br>

A cheap solution to tethered shooting (depending on the camera) is to connect the camera's video out to a large screen video monitor. The image will be identical to what you see on the back of your camera, but is better than just the camera LCD for evaluating light, shadow, and reflection.<br>

In my case, I found it impossible to get enough light to get optimum aperture settings f/8 - /16 without shutter speeds in the minutes range, when I was using fluorescent lights. Incandescent hot lights are too much of a hazard and are not controllable enough for the kind of work you are looking to do.<br>

<Chas></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>This is why even modest studio flash units (like Alien Bees, etc) have modeling lights. These are lower-power lamps that show you how the light will fall on your subject, but allow you to work without the intense light of a full-on exposure-worthy hotlight.<br /><br />So, the modeling lights (if you turn them on) allow you to compose. and the flash of the strobes at the time of the exposure does the heavy lifting. This is especially important with human subjects, since you don't want them squinting, with contracted pupils, sweating, and so on.</p>

[garry edwards]

<p>As Charles says, it's possible with continuous lighting but easier and better with flash.</p>

<p>There are a lot of problems with continuous lighting but the only real benefit I can see is the WYSIWYG factor. Problems include heat if using tungsten lighting and very poor colour rendition if using anything but very expensive pro lighting if using fluorescents.<br>

But the single biggest problem with any form of non-flash lighting is the difficulty of controlling the light, in terms of both brightness and shaping the light. Please see <a href="../learn/lighting/choosing-studio-lighting/">this article</a> for an insight into why you should use flash, and the <a href="../learn/lighting/light-shaping-tools/">accompanying article </a> on light shaping tools to see what you'll be missing if you go for continuous lighting</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I agree with you Tzvi. I have strobes and know how to use them but much prefer daylight or tungsten. I did use flash this summer on the first shoot I have done in several years where it was the better choice. Garry, I read your comments. I used flash for many years as a professional portrait guy. It was necessary because the customers could not be ordered to hold still. I know how to use it in many ways including some that I have never seen used elsewhere. I still prefer tungsten. Many people believe that the quality of light is the same whether it be tungsten of flash. I do not agree at all. </p>

[richard_cochran]

<p>Continuous light isn't so bad for completely still subjects when you can put the camera on a tripod, though Garry has a good point that strobe offers a lot more flexibility in modifier choice, because the modifiers don't have to cope with the high heat of hot lights, and simply because lots of companies make lots of kinds of modifiers to fit any reasonable brand of strobe.</p>

<p>Continuous light is lousy for people and other moving subjects, because it forces every setting into a compromise. You'll shoot with the aperture wider than ideal, because you need every bit of light you can get. You'll shoot with the ISO cranked up faster than ideal, because you need all the light you can get. You'll shoot with the shutter speed slower than ideal and you'll probably lose some shots to subject motion, because you need every bit of light you can get. And you can't shoot people except in static still poses.</p>

<p>With a completely still inanimate subject and a camera on a tripod, you can use as long a shutter speed as necessary, so you eliminate the need to compromise ISO and aperture for the sake of getting a decent exposure. That's why continuous light works in this situation.</p>

<p>Or, with studio flash, you shoot at sync speed and allow the flash duration to stop motion, and you'll typically have plenty of power to shoot at whatever ISO and aperture you could want, without compromise.</p>

<p>Modelling lights take care of the visualization aspect of things very well, and a bit of experience also helps in reducing the number of trial and error shots, even if you're using strobes with inadequate or nonexistent modelling lights.</p>

[mcbt]

<p>While I agree with most of what has been said, continuous lighting does provide more than one benefit (WYSIWYG). Usually continuous lighting produces far less light and this forces you to open your aperture which can create some gorgeous softness if that's what your after. I have a three light studio set up that I built on the cheap that is a power supply and three strobes and I love it, but occasionally I pine for my old continuous lights for softness of focus.</p><div></div>

[tzvih]

<p>Thank you all for your helpful responses. I actually just took my AB strobe out of the box yesterday and did not realize that it came with a modleing light. This does help significantly.</p>

[photography by a.f. smith]

<p>I think some clarification would benifit a bit here. Continuous lighting is NOT nescesarrily "hot" light. HMIs and CDM/CSTs are warm, Fluorescents are cool, and LEDs produce almost NO heat.<br>

Now, some of these have some other drawbacks of their own. Most notably they are all expensive. (Assuming you purchase Fluorescents with a HIGH CRI which is crucial.)<br>

One of the main benifits of continous lighting, far more important that WYSIWYG in my opinion, is the variety of fixture types available. Fresnels and Elipsoidals can produce far more dramatic effects than most strobes, and are far easier to work with if you need to control spill. (Although this typically rules out any LED or fluorescent solutions.)<br>

The hardlight provided by these fixtures, is, in my opinion, is much better for table top stuff. Objects typically look more attractive in hard light (reveals texture and dimension) than people do. (On people, texture = wrinkles, and blemishes and dimension = shadows.)<br>

Finally, shooting tabletop stuff, (Such as jewelry.) allows you to work with smaller, lower wattage fixtures. So, if you're on a budget, standard hot lights can be cost effective to purchase and low wattage means a far more managable amount of heat. <br>

Assuming you're shooting from a tripod, you don't really have to shell out for a high output fixture. Just adjust your shutter speed accordingly.<br>

If you prefer working with strobes, yes, just get some with modeling lights. Everyone produces the best results with what they know. I, personally prefer continous lights, and if you're intrested in using, experimenting, or learning don't let heat be a deterrent.</p>