View Single Post
Re: Continuous -vs- Strobe
Old 04-15-2008, 12:21 AM   #6 (permalink)
isaiahbrink
Free Member

 
isaiahbrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Member GG#: 39216
Location: Salisbury
Posts: 1,113
Comments: 2
Send a message via MSN to isaiahbrink Send a message via Yahoo to isaiahbrink

isaiahbrink is offline IP: 70.133.197.84
  Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobArtLyn View Post
I am fairly sure that I don't understand this statement. How can strobes be "overused" vs. continuous light? If the lighting is done properly, the use of strobes vs. continuous lighting should be irrelevant to the final result as far as appearance is concerned and the use of one or the other largely impossible to determine.

Also, just to prevent any confusion, I assume by continuous light we are all NOT talking about available light, but "hot lights".
Overused in this context means that the vast majority of photographers use strobes for their lighting to the point where to be creative, one would need to use continous light. At least IMO. Look up George Hurrell, not many strobes used at all. Well, continous does have the connotation of being an artifical light form as in needs to be plugged in to some sort of power source at one time, including ones that use a battery pack, which you need to plug in to charge. But availble light while continous in nature, usually is reffered to it as that, availble, not continous nor strobe light.
__________________
I know that I am one with beauty, And that my comrades are one. Let our souls be mountains, Let our spirtis be stars, Let our hearts be worlds.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to isaiahbrink Find More Posts by isaiahbrink