# Pros and cons of flash vs constant lighting and more ?



## 4meandthem (Aug 5, 2012)

Umbrellas vs softboxes...Why?
Constant vs flash...why?
Combo of the 2?
Which is easiest to learn?
Macro ring light...Best one for under 100 bucks? 

What is easiest/best solution a newb hobby type shooter that wants the most versitility until he experiment enough to figure out for himself. I don't want Cowboy Studio junk but pro stuff is is also not what I need either. Somewhere in the middle with some portability. Insect/flower macro, event video, family portrait, landscape are my interests for now.I don't have a style yet let alone a clue LOL. I have read the recent first studio post and alot of Strobist 101 posts. Just looking for a place to jump. Budget is what it is. I am looking for advise on type of products more than individual products.
Thanks for looking and any advise given.

Ed


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

1. I like softboxes. They allow me to feather light with no spill out the side of the umbrella. I can use a HUGE softbox to get a huge, soft light. 
2. Flash is a whole lot stronger than constant light. Constant seems great because you see exactly what you are getting, but you need a HUGE amount of wattage to equal one small flash. That tends to be REALLY HOT for the model and even the photog. Combo of the 2 doesn't work unless you have a TON of constant. Because of the major wattage differences.
3. Constant is easy, I suppose. In order to get enough constant light to illuminate a couple of subjects you'll need to invest a LOT of cash. 
Flash isn't all that hard. 
4. None

5. Speedlights. I'd go for one good, brand specific speedlight to match the camera and then I am all for the Yongnuo's. You can get enough power to light up like Christmas for a really reasonable price. You'll still want stands and modifiers to go with it, but for portability and price with a huge amount of versatility? I am all for speedlights. If you have read strobist 101 you know he recommends the yongnuo's as well. I like gorilla pods, personally. I can wrap one of those suckers anywhere and get a speedlight in some amazing places with those.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 6, 2012)

The choice to go with speed lights vs. a traditional sutdio strobe should be based on how much power the OP needs and where he will be shooting. If the OP needs extreme portability and won't need to have to over power the sun and doesn't have an issue with keeping track of AA's, then speed lights will work. If the OP finds themselves needing more power and bigger modifiers, then it will take a lot more speed lights to make up the look and power they'll get with one monolight.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 6, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> The choice to go with speed lights vs. a traditional sutdio strobe should be based on how much power the OP needs and where he will be shooting. If the OP needs extreme portability and won't need to have to over power the sun and doesn't have an issue with keeping track of AA's, then speed lights will work. If the OP finds themselves needing more power and bigger modifiers, then it will take a lot more speed lights to make up the look and power they'll get with one monolight.


VERY true!!!! However a setup of speedlights is going to be more power than any basic, budget setup of constant lighting. It's going to take *a lot* of continuous to equal up to a couple of speedlights.


----------



## nineoneeighttony (Aug 6, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> 1. I like softboxes. They allow me to feather light with no spill out the side of the umbrella. I can use a HUGE softbox to get a huge, soft light.
> 2. Flash is a whole lot stronger than constant light. Constant seems great because you see exactly what you are getting, but you need a HUGE amount of wattage to equal one small flash. That tends to be REALLY HOT for the model and even the photog. Combo of the 2 doesn't work unless you have a TON of constant. Because of the major wattage differences.
> 3. Constant is easy, I suppose. In order to get enough constant light to illuminate a couple of subjects you'll need to invest a LOT of cash.
> Flash isn't all that hard.
> ...


 I know some locals who use Youngnuo Speedlites, they were highly recommended!! I agree with the softbox statement, softbox and beauty dish are my two favorite modifiers.


----------



## KmH (Aug 6, 2012)

Yongnuo speedlights are dirt cheap, because they are built cheap and don't have much, if any, bells and whistles (mostly manual only).

Strobe lights, hot shoe flash units or studio strobes, deliver their light in a very much shorter time span than constant lights do. That means strobe lights allow using shorter shutter speeds than constant lights do.

Inanimate subjects don't require short shutter speeds and are more amenable to the use of constant lighting and a tripod mounted camera. Constant light power is rated in watts. A watt is one joule of power per second.
If you use a 500 watt constant light and a shutter speed of 1 second, you use all 500 watts. If you use a 500 watt constant light and a shutter speed of 1/100 of a second you only use 5 watts of the 500 watts the light makes in 1 second.

Strobed light is flash, and constant light is ambient light, so mixing the 2 can be done but the camera's shutter speed controls the ambient light exposure, while the lens aperture controls the strobed light exposure.

The are many kinds of light modifiers and each has their pluses and minuses relative to what is being photographed, and where it is being photographed.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 8, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > The choice to go with speed lights vs. a traditional sutdio strobe should be based on how much power the OP needs and where he will be shooting. If the OP needs extreme portability and won't need to have to over power the sun and doesn't have an issue with keeping track of AA's, then speed lights will work. If the OP finds themselves needing more power and bigger modifiers, then it will take a lot more speed lights to make up the look and power they'll get with one monolight.
> ...



And a setup of monolights are going to be more power than any basic, budget setup of speedlights. What's your point?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 8, 2012)

Monolights FTW


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 8, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


Absolutely! My point is in the question...



4meandthem said:


> Umbrellas vs softboxes...Why?
> Constant vs flash...why?
> Combo of the 2?
> Which is easiest to learn?
> ...


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 10, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



You can get 150w/s Adorama lights for $100. They're mostly portable and can be used where a wall outlet isn't readily available with a cheap battery. The question that needs to be answered is where/what/when will the OP be shooting.


----------



## Shytori (Nov 6, 2012)

4meandthem said:


> Umbrellas vs softboxes...Why?
> Constant vs flash...why?
> Combo of the 2?
> Which is easiest to learn?
> ...



I think constant lights are more power effective.


----------



## sactown024 (Nov 6, 2012)

flash threads alwasy turn into arguments lol


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

sactown024 said:
			
		

> threads alwasy turn into arguments lol



Fixed.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 6, 2012)

Shytori said:


> 4meandthem said:
> 
> 
> > Umbrellas vs softboxes...Why?
> ...


would you please explain that?


----------



## KmH (Nov 6, 2012)

Shytori said:


> I think constant lights are more power effective.


Constant lights are slow.

A 200 watt constant light delivers the 200 watts in one second. If you use a shutter speed of 1/100 second, the constant light only delivers 2 watts during the exposure, wasting 180 watts in the second the light was on for the exposure, and wasting 200 watts for each additional second the light is on when you're not taking photos.

A constant light cannot be used to stop motion like a strobe light (flash) can.

Constant lighting adds to the ambient light in a scene and the constant light cannot be controlled separate from the ambient light the way strobed light can.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Shytori said:
> 
> 
> > I think constant lights are more power effective.
> ...



Yeah, I lol'd.  I have no idea what his definition of 'power effective' is, but I can't imagine any remotely plausible meaning of the term where that statement is true.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 6, 2012)

KmH said:


> Shytori said:
> 
> 
> > I think constant lights are more power effective.
> ...



Not that I care, but I keep seeing this math...and it does not seem accurate. A 200 Watt bulb puts out....wait for it,wait for it...200 Watts. The time the shutter is open does NOT change the output of the bulb. The idea that the duration the shutter is open actually seems to me to be a seriously flawed bit of "logic". I mean, I understand where you are coming from, but the logic is seriously,seriously FLAWED. For example, let's take the noon-day sun in Los Angeles on July 4th. The sun is bright that day. If I open my eyes for one second....that does NOT make the sun "dimmer" than if I keep my eyes open for five minutes while I run down to Starbucks to get a coffee. I understand why some people use the example under discussion, but it seems just wrong to me to make statements that are entirely inaccurate.

If I weigh 250 pounds, but stand on ONE FOOT, do I therefore weigh 125 pounds? If I have a gallon of water, but put it into FOUR, separate, 32-ounce plastic bottles, do I somehow magically have LESS THAN a gallon of water??? if I have a 500 Watt flood light, its output is ALWAYS 500 Watts...that's the way that works...

I believe the premise being used is flawed from the very core. The concept stated above is that a 200 Watt bulb puts out 200 Watts in one second....uh...that's not the way I understand it...it's not based on TIME....there is absolutely ZERO "time element"....Wattage is based on how MUCH light is put out. I wonder if maybe I could read a book using three, 10-Watt night lights if I just sat there in the dark and waited long enough...hmmm...


----------



## manicmike (Nov 6, 2012)

For a hobbyist, I actually don't think the Cowboy studio stuff is that bad.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

Derrel said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Shytori said:
> ...



Wattage is in fact a time based unit.  it's one Joule/sec


----------



## Derrel (Nov 6, 2012)

So, if I sit in the near-dark for six hours with three, 10-Watt bulbs I will be able to read the book???


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

Derrel said:


> So, if I sit in the near-dark for six hours with three, 10-Watt bulbs I will be able to read the book???



No, because your eyes work differently than a camera.  If you sit a camera in there with the shutter open that long, then I imagine that you wouldn't be able to read the book, because it would have too much light. (well, obviously depending on your settings.  It might be possible with some combo of base ISO, stopped down aperture and ND filters to get a workable exposure in 3 hours of three 10 watt bulbs, but IDK exactly what the numbers would be)


----------



## Helen B (Nov 6, 2012)

In addition to what Derrel wrote, may I suggest some changes:



KmH said:


> Constant light power is rated in watts. A watt is one joule of power per second.



A watt is one joule of energy per second. A watt is a unit of power - though we often refer to 'powerful' strobes when we are referring to energy (watt seconds = joules) instead of power.



> If you use a 500 watt constant light and a shutter speed of 1 second, you use all 500 watts. If you use a 500 watt constant light and a shutter speed of 1/100 of a second you only use 5 watts of the 500 watts the light makes in 1 second.



A 500 W constant light is always using 500 W, no matter what the shutter speed is. In 1 s it uses 500 J (joules). In 1/100 s it uses 5 J, but still 500 W. 

Wattage is not the best indicator of light output, because different types of light source put out different light powers (lumens) for the same electrical power input (in watts). The lumens/watt ratio varies dramatically.



> Strobed light is flash, and constant light is ambient light, so mixing  the 2 can be done but the camera's shutter speed controls the ambient  light exposure, while the lens aperture controls the strobed light  exposure.



Exactly. I do that quite a lot. It's a useful technique.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 6, 2012)

I think HelenB has better-articulated the idea that I tried so poorly to communicate...but dammnit!!! i am OUT OF FREAKING COFFEE and my brain is in 1st gear....


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

Helen B said:


> In addition to what Derrel wrote, may I suggest some changes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, it is always at 500W, but the amount of light put out by the light varies by the amount of time the camera is exposed to it.  I think I'm seeing the issue, KmH said it produces 2 watts, which is obviously wrong.  I think he meant the brightness equivalent of 2 Watts over 1 second.  Yeah, Derrel, you are right, I was just thrown off by you saying 'it has no time element'.  which isn't correct.

It has a time element, it's just that by reducing the numerator, you also reduce the denominator, so the wattage is constant.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I think HelenB has better-articulated the idea that I tried so poorly to communicate...but dammnit!!! i am OUT OF FREAKING COFFEE and my brain is in 1st gear....



Ha, yeah, I get what you were saying now.  I also had sort of fixed what KmH was saying in my head without realizing what he said was technically wrong.  I didn't realize he said it was 2 watts until I just re-read his post.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

in other words: it's funny how a 20w CFL produces the equivalent amount of light as a 75w incandescent bulb.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> in other words: it's funny how a 20w CFL produces the equivalent amount of light as a 75w incandescent bulb.



Yeah, as Helen was saying, wattage is a terrible way to measure things for photographers, since it sort of assumes the same level of efficiency.  Some lights are more efficient at getting you photons per watt into the camera.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

But KmH isn't entirely wrong. The amount of energy which accumulates at the film plane can be measured. While a 500w source always pulls 500w, the amount of that energy that can be recorded depends on exposure time, and this energy can be measured in watt/time. But as Helen points out, not all of the energy which the lamp consumes can be converted into light. Some of it is also lost in heat. This is why incandescent is so inefficient, more of the light radiated from a heated filament will be in the invisible part of the spectrum.

In fact, an incadescent blacklight bulb is just a regular bulb that has been filtered, and there is STILL enough energy to cause fluorescence and violet light illumination.


----------



## Helen B (Nov 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> and this energy can be measured in watt/time.



I know you know this - it's watts times time, not watts divided by time.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> But KmH isn't entirely wrong. The amount of energy which accumulates at the film plane can be measured. While a 500w source always pulls 500w, the amount of that energy that can be recorded depends on exposure time, and this energy can be measured in watt/time.



Right, I think we all understood the spirit of what KmH was trying to say, and that being correct.  I think they were just pointing out it was technically incorrect.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

Helen B said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > and this energy can be measured in watt/time.
> ...



yeah. I just didn't want to say watt/second because I didn't want to limit what I was saying to one second. When we're talking about exposure end of the equation, time is the variable and the wattage is the constant. 

The "/" represents "per" not "divided by".


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



per means divided by.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

piss, you're right. now i am confused. Should it be time per watt then?


----------



## Helen B (Nov 6, 2012)

No, it should be watts (symbol W) times seconds (symbol s), or watt·seconds or W·s also known as joules (symbol J).


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

but wouldn't seconds per watt be the same as watts * second?


----------



## Helen B (Nov 6, 2012)

'Fraid not. If you are having difficulty seeing it, think of it in joules (watt = joules/second).

seconds per watt = s/W = s/(J/s) = s²/J  or  seconds squared per joule (a unit of weirdness or insanity)

watt·seconds = W·s = (J/s)· s = J  (joules ie energy, not to be confused with the Jools-Holland, which is a cute unit of pure music)


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

Helen B said:


> (a unit of weirdness or insanity)



LOL. Helen, you win every time!


----------



## tomso (Nov 6, 2012)

From an engineering/physics standpoint, Watts are simply a measure of the power required to reach a desired light output. If light x had a light output of 1000 lumens and a watt measurement of 50 W, it means that it required 50 Joules per second to power light x to the theoretical full 1000 lumens. If light y had a light output of 500 lumens and a watt measurement of 100 W, it means that it required 100 Joules per second to power light y to the theoretical full 500 lumens, which is still only half as bright as light x. Upping the power input to either light would likely blow the resistor (which is what causes the illumination).

A camera's sensor varies the amount of light recorded because of the time it takes the light to reach the sensor through the lens (this is where you get the inverse square law from). A more intense light source means there will be more photons traveling from the light source through your lens and thus you have don't have to have the shutter open as long. A light twice as bright? Leave the shutter open 1/4 of the time required for the standard light at the same distance. Watts are, unfortunately, a terrible way to measure light output. Unless you make the silly assumption that all lights have the same lumen output, in which case wattage may be an accurate estimate.


----------



## Helen B (Nov 6, 2012)

tomso said:


> A camera's sensor varies the amount of light recorded because of the time it takes the light to reach the sensor through the lens (this is where you get the inverse square law from).



Is it really?



> A more intense light source means there will be more photons traveling from the light source through your lens and thus you have don't have to have the shutter open as long. A light twice as bright? Leave the shutter open 1/4 of the time required for the standard light at the same distance.



Twice as bright: half the shutter speed, not a quarter.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 6, 2012)

Helen B said:


> tomso said:
> 
> 
> > A camera's sensor varies the amount of light recorded because of the time it takes the light to reach the sensor through the lens (this is where you get the inverse square law from).
> ...



Yeah, the inverse square law has to do with distance of the light source, not time.


----------



## tomso (Nov 6, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > tomso said:
> ...



My mistake. I was thinking along the lines of speed of light being constant, so distance and time are proportional in a 1:1 ratio, so that must mean they can both be described using the inverse square law (really though that one through...). Electromagnetism was never one of my strong points.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 6, 2012)

Hey--I JUST got back from voting and the grocery store afterwards: I bought a whole, baked chicken from a hot case that was lighted by three, 150-Watt heat lamps inside a five foot-long enclosure....so my questions are simple ones. 

1) How hot is my chicken supposed to be?   

2) How long do I have to eat the chicken until it becomes cold ?

3) Should I cut the chicken into pieces, or like is mentioned on The Big Bang Theory,should I eat the chicken with my bare hands while leaning over the kitchen sink?? 

Oh...I also bought some freaking coffee while at the grocery store!!!!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

it really depends on the quantum yield of the chicken. Higher quantum yield is typically better for the in-the-hand-hand method.


----------

