Continuous -vs- Strobe

[isaiahbrink]

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

Sorry, still not getting it. Except for certain technical situations, there is little, if anything about an image that would indicate whether the light was continuous or momentary.



Hurrell's images look the way that they do primarily for three reasons. (1) Careful lighting. This is where the fact that he used hot lights comes in to play. What-you-see-is-what-you-get. This is entirely doable with strobes. if you want. It just takes a little longer of you are going to be picky about the minute details. (2) The type of modifiers on the lights. He didn't use softboxes like so many photographers do today. He used dishes and reflectors and produced a much harder style of lighting. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from using these types of light modifiers on strobes to get the same quality of light. (3) Heavy "photoshopping", which in his day meant shooting on 4x5 or 8x10 and hand retouching the negative with etching, pencil and powdered graphite to hide the inevitable flaws shown by his preferred lighting style, something that I believe does not fit your "get it right in the camera" philosophy from the "photographer vs. photoshoppers" thread.

However, at the end of the day, a photographer who understands light can create the same images with strobes or hot lights, with no visible difference in the final results. The difference will be in choosing one over the other for ease of use for the particular application, or working style.



Yes, of course. But your comment about strobes being over used compared to continuous, when they really don't have much visual difference, made me stop to consider what other things you might have meant, as strobe/continuous and available certainly have different characteristics.

Yes Hurrell did take notice over the minute details, and used modifiers like barn doors and snoots, but chose not to use softboxes, and since the computer was a long way off, no photoshopping at all, but did use a fine tipped retouching brush at times. But then again, he didn't use makup artists and would have the models wash their faces clean.

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

since the computer was a long way off, no photoshopping at all, but did use a fine tipped retouching brush at times

I hope you don't think that I meant that Hurrell used Photoshop literally, since I explicitly mentioned the techniques that were used. It was in quotes for a reason, to indicate that he regularly relied on a level of post processing, um, oops, dark room work and negative manipulation, that often gets people chastised today for creating images that are too unreal. And to say he used a fine tipped retouching brush "at times" is like saying that he used a camera "at times".

[kgphoto]

Jim,

Have you taken shots with the camera on a tripod with a stationary subject, like a mannequin head to see if the shadows really change much? Unless you are shooting with bare reflectors, I doubt they change much if at all. Try it and see. It is easy with digital cameras and the ability to white balance and change ISO settings.

[jimmyd]

Simple answer: It's not that one is better than the other. They each have their uses, they each have their limitations, they each have their positive attributes. In other words, use the right tools for the job. BTW, you can also mix continuous light and strobes, albeit you'll usually need to marry strobes with continuous lighting instruments with real power, e.g., HMIs.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by kgphoto

Jim,

Have you taken shots with the camera on a tripod with a stationary subject, like a mannequin head to see if the shadows really change much? Unless you are shooting with bare reflectors, I doubt they change much if at all. Try it and see. It is easy with digital cameras and the ability to white balance and change ISO settings.

The big plus of strobe is the power to freeze action and even control the sun itself (when outside). The big plus of continuous is the ability to see more accurately what the lighting is doing and also the ability to shoot bursts. As the fluorescence lights become ever more efficient I see them replacing a lot of strobes and traditional "hot" lights because they are so "cool". White Balance has sort of been the great equalizer in all of this.

Cheers,
rfs

[hgwest]

I typically dont respond to general posts, but I could'nt resist. I've used both, I currently use strobes- but I like continuous lighting. Daylight balanced flourescent tubes are great! Lighting is like camera brand, you'll find great photographers in both camps! If you go to Photovision and watch some of the Demos you'll see that alot of those Pro's are using cool touch continuous lighting because of the WYSIWYG feature. Watch for yourself and decide.
Harold

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by hgwest

I typically dont respond to general posts, but I could'nt resist. I've used both, I currently use strobes- but I like continuous lighting. Daylight balanced flourescent tubes are great! Lighting is like camera brand, you'll find great photographers in both camps! If you go to Photovision and watch some of the Demos you'll see that alot of those Pro's are using cool touch continuous lighting because of the WYSIWYG feature. Watch for yourself and decide.
Harold

Yes, I watched a bunch of the PhotoVision DVDs as well as attended the recent seminar in DFW area. It seemed that most of the photographers were using continuous lighting for their studio work. I also saw lots of rapid fire action where they would blast off 3 or 4 shots in a second (which I guess insures getting one with eyes open, etc).

Cheers,
rfs

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith

As the fluorescence lights become ever more efficient I see them replacing a lot of strobes and traditional "hot" lights because they are so "cool".

Fluorescents, like KinoFlo's products, are great. Modifying for "softness" isn't a big deal as they are inherently soft. They can be a bit difficult to control as they scatter the light widely. But you can use them with grids and, of course, flags can be a great help too. With Kinos or other fluorescents, you'll be shooting at high ISOs, with wide apertures and slow shutters. You'll probly start seeing photographers shooting with LitePanels as that technology migrates from film and television production to still photography.

[kgphoto]

Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith

The big plus of strobe is the power to freeze action and even control the sun itself (when outside). The big plus of continuous is the ability to see more accurately what the lighting is doing and also the ability to shoot bursts. As the fluorescence lights become ever more efficient I see them replacing a lot of strobes and traditional "hot" lights because they are so "cool". White Balance has sort of been the great equalizer in all of this.

Cheers,
rfs

Hey RF,

While all that you say is true, that wasn't the point being discussed. I have no problem shooting bursts because I use my strobes at 1/4 power. I don't really shoot "bursts" as why have 5 more bad shots? I shoot, wait for the expression to change and shoot again. Typically 2 frames per second is as fast as I need to go. If I go faster than that, I use stroboscopic lights rather than try to push the camera.

I learned at the Nikon School of Photography to anticipate and shoot before the decisive moment as a hockey puck can travel 50 feet between frames of a 5 frame per second burst.

Some people don't like the pop pop of the strobes, small babies and animals come to mind, but by the time the shutter speeds and f:stops get up to where I want them, it is very bright and hot. Much easier to tolerate the short burst of strobe light and that usually beats all but the fastest animal.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by kgphoto

Hey RF,

While all that you say is true, that wasn't the point being discussed. I have no problem shooting bursts because I use my strobes at 1/4 power. I don't really shoot "bursts" as why have 5 more bad shots? I shoot, wait for the expression to change and shoot again. Typically 2 frames per second is as fast as I need to go. If I go faster than that, I use stroboscopic lights rather than try to push the camera.

I learned at the Nikon School of Photography to anticipate and shoot before the decisive moment as a hockey puck can travel 50 feet between frames of a 5 frame per second burst.

Some people don't like the pop pop of the strobes, small babies and animals come to mind, but by the time the shutter speeds and f:stops get up to where I want them, it is very bright and hot. Much easier to tolerate the short burst of strobe light and that usually beats all but the fastest animal.

Several points were being discussed. One was Continuous VS Strobe (see title of the posts). You seem to equate continuous lighting with Hot, and hotter when you get up to higher powers. But that is no longer really the case with new lighting systems that are now available. I'm not a burst shooter myself, I prefer to anticipate the moment, but you can't always do that. What I'm seeing a lot of in "professional" photographic DVDs showing full time well known, highly paid professionals working in the wedding and portrait business that a lot of them are using continuous lighting and burst mode shooting and they're getting fantastic results. Its the results that count!
As for sporting events, I've been to quite a few over the years. The bulk of the pros I saw working those events were doing lots of burst mode work.

Cheers,
Rfs