# continuous lighting



## Alyssa15267 (Feb 1, 2015)

What do you all think about CFL continuous lighting soft box for newborn photography? I don't really know a lot about lighting but think that I got to start somewhere....where did you start when tackling studio lighting? Is there any good books out there that can help me understand it better?


----------



## tirediron (Feb 1, 2015)

Waste of money.  They don't put out nearly as much light as you might think.  A couple of inexpensive Yongnuo speedlights and shoot-through umbrellas would be a much better option.  As for books... get the bible!   This is also a great 'site.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 1, 2015)

Continuous lights typically don't have enough output power for photography.  I've seen some very powerful LED's out there that may work, but you should learn how to use flash.  I worked as an intern for a studio many years ago when I was in college and needed money.  I learned all the basics from watching the main photographer.   @tirediron posted some great resources already.  To me, there's nothing better than to actually try it.


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 1, 2015)

If you are going to do indoor portraits... You should definitely invest in some quality lights. Not having good lighting equipment (an example from me below) WILL bite you in the @$$ during post big time.

I'm not going to give you further advice because I have no lighting equipments except for the built in pop up flash but you should definitely take advice from these guys.








Vtec44 said:


> Continuous lights typically don't have enough output power for photography.  I've seen some very powerful LED's out there that may work, but you should learn how to use flash.  I worked as an intern for a studio many years ago when I was in college and needed money.  I learned all the basics from watching the main photographer.  @tirediron posted some great resources already.  To me, there's nothing better than to actually try it.



If you are shooting at f1.8 + at least 400 or 800 ISO, continuous lighting works well enough.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 1, 2015)

Really it's going to depend a lot upon the amount of bulbs you have in the unit. Some CFL softbox units only have a couple of bulbs. Some have considerably more. Among all the studio gear I own is a Lencarta Quadlite, which as the name suggests, has 4 bulbs inside. That does put out a very reasonable amount of light. Of course the distance the light is to your subject will affect exposure greatly, so getting it as close as you can without it being in the frame would be advisable. You also have the option to raise your ISO, with most modern DSLR capable of getting clean images at ISO 800 to 1600. Older DSLR like the D90 and below, I wouldn't venture above ISO 800.

With all that said, if it's for newborn photography, generally the kids are asleep or at least not exactly jumping about the place, so you aren't going to require a particularly fast shutter speed. If you're hand holding the camera aim to get a shutter speed equivalent to your focal length + any crop factor. If you're tripod mounted then even very slow shutters can be achieved with the use of a release cord or wireless remote. Alternatively using a timer. Which ever you use, enable the mirror lock up or exposure delay to avoid mirror slap blur. If you're shooting with a 35mm or 50mm lens, then achieving a blur free shutter speed shouldn't be a problem even at native ISO (usually 100-200).

I use the YN560 II strobes myself in studio and they are great value for money. However, for newborns I wouldn't use flash. Mainly because of disturbing the child if it sleeps. Continuous light is something they will much more readily accept, than a strobe going off. One major bonus of a CFL light or a monolight (PCB Einstein, Alien Bee, Elinchrom, Bowens, etc), is the ability to see in real time, exactly what light and shadows are doing. If you are using strobes like the YN560, you will have to chimp your exposure in the absence of a light meter, as they aren't TTL. Yongnuo do make TTL strobes for a few bucks more. The downside to speedlite type flashes is that you won't see what the light is doing, until you have taken a picture. This will mean the flash firing a few times to fine tune your light, which can be a disturbance to a new baby. If you do go with strobes, be sure to turn off the recycle beep.


----------



## Alyssa15267 (Feb 1, 2015)

Tbh off camera flash scares me


----------



## AKUK (Feb 1, 2015)

It can be pretty daunting but once you understand the basic principles it gets quite easy, quite quickly. If you're wanting some help getting started with flash, there are a number of articles and guides on my site that may help you, as well as equipment reviews. I also compiled all the articles and guides into a free ebook too, so grab that if you like.


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 1, 2015)

AKUK said:


> It can be pretty daunting but once you understand the basic principles it gets quite easy, quite quickly. If you're wanting some help getting started with flash, there are a number of articles and guides on my site that may help you, as well as equipment reviews. I also compiled all the articles and guides into a free ebook too, so grab that if you like.


Your lighting work is a-maz-ing.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 1, 2015)

Thanks David. A lot of the studio stuff is lit with a PCB Einstein as the key, using the YN-560 IIs as rim and fills. I've swapped the latter out for some cheap but good performance monolights recently, so fine tuning the light is a bit quicker but, if you're on a budget cheap strobes can be highly effective, so long as you modify the light. For that I use speedlite to bowens adapters, so I can use all my generic bowens S mount modifiers on YN560 II flashes.


----------



## DavidVote (Feb 1, 2015)

AKUK said:


> Thanks David. A lot of the studio stuff is lit with a PCB Einstein as the key, using the YN-560 IIs as rim and fills. I've swapped the latter out for some cheap but good performance monolights recently, so fine tuning the light is a bit quicker but, if you're on a budget cheap strobes can be highly effective, so long as you modify the light. For that I use speedlite to bowens adapters, so I can use all my generic bowens S mount modifiers on YN560 II flashes.


Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll have to probably google those terms and products tomorrow or something lol.


----------



## Alyssa15267 (Feb 1, 2015)

Where would I find your articles and eBook?


----------



## AKUK (Feb 1, 2015)

Haha. Don't worry, you'll get there. Photography is a learning curve and something you don't really stop learning either. Plus there is always new equipment being released. Stop reading news sites or magazines for 6 months and you feel out of touch


----------



## unpopular (Feb 1, 2015)

Have you looked into LED instead? I can understand not wanting to use flashes around babies, but I agree, unless you're willing to invest in massive 100W CFLs you might as well have invested in LED. CFLs at that size aren't very compact.

One thing about LED is that they're cool to touch, robust, and inherently diffused.

As for your fear of off-camera flashes, don't worry about it. They're not that scary ... once you get over the several thousand volts sitting around in them just waiting for exposure  seriously though, they're not that bad and with a light meter there isn't a lot of guesswork either.


----------



## Alyssa15267 (Feb 1, 2015)

I haven't really thought too much about LED, are they better than cfls?


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 2, 2015)

DavidVote said:


> If you are shooting at f1.8 + at least 400 or 800 ISO, continuous lighting works well enough.



I would assume that will depend on the power output of the continuous light.  Standard traditional studio work for me is around f8, 1/125, ISO around 100-400.  It doesn't mean I'm always going to stick to that, but it's my base setup.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 2, 2015)

Alyssa15267 said:


> I haven't really thought too much about LED, are they better than cfls?



In theory they would seem attractive. In practice you'd have to talk to someone who knows first hand. I've only use flash and quartz.

I do know that LEDs are capable of dumping huge amounts of light. High end units are used in the film industry, even for slow motion work, but, I don't know how more affordable units would compare performance-wise and these units can cost several thousand dollars. Do you have any kind of budget in mind?

Some nice things about LED is that they're pretty much indestructible, some units can easily run on batteries and they generate very, very little heat.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 2, 2015)

The great thing for those just starting on their journey to learn how to light, continuous lighting or lights with modeling lamps (again, continuous lighting) allows them to see how the light and shadow shape as they set it up and move it around.

It can take a while to learn how to envision what it will do from firing speedlights and chimping or, worse reviewing shots later, after forgetting exactly how the light(s) and modifiers were set up and what was dialed in them.

Here's a recent Phlearn video that the OP may find helpful or at least interesting:

Light an Amazing Portrait with a low cost DIY Lighting Kit


----------



## Braineack (Feb 2, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Light an Amazing Portrait with a low cost DIY Lighting Kit



1/60 sec
iso 500
f/2.8

and it's still underexposed.



if you were shooting the 18-55 3.5-5.6 (at 55mm), you'd need to shoot at 1/60, 5.6, iso ~1600..


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 2, 2015)

DavidVote said:


> If you are shooting at f1.8 + at least 400 or 800 ISO, continuous lighting works well enough.



Most typical studio shots are at a higher aperture such as f/5.6 or greater.
If you shoot exclusively at f/1.8 and fairly close up, expect images to be soft and your DOF to suffer (ie, out of focus issues).  There's plenty of threads where people shoot at f/1.8 because they have it for low light.  It helps in gathering light, but also affects the Depth of Field.  So be careful using it and know how.

Continuous lighting does not stop movement.  A Speedlight/strobe will stop movement.  So you have to keep shutter fairly fast at say 1/125 or faster with continuous.  If you get to slower speeds then expect movement (subject AND photographer) and soft photos from that movement.

I wouldn't be scared of off camera flash.  You're only scare because you haven't tried or learned about it.  Yongnuo is a very inexpensive way of getting into it.


----------



## runnah (Feb 2, 2015)

I use continuous light all the time for video and while they are great for lighting everything else about them sucks. They are big, heavy, get very hot, and need power sources.


----------



## Designer (Feb 2, 2015)

Alyssa15267 said:


> Tbh off camera flash scares me


There's nothing to be afraid of, unless it is spending money on CFL lights that you will end up not using.  

Just start in and learn it.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 2, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Light an Amazing Portrait with a low cost DIY Lighting Kit
> ...


Or add more light, like the ambient light that would usually be in the room, but wasn't present in the video example, or with a few more light sticks, or even with some regular lamps, or brighten it a bit in post.  And ISO 1600 on most modern cameras, even the lower end ones, is usually fine.

But the thing is, you missed the actual point of how shooting with continuous light can be helpful to those who are learning about light.

The video was just an example, and Aaron Nace can run circles around you when it comes to lighting, shooting and producing great photos, so you might want to be careful where you're sticking that thumb.


----------



## Alyssa15267 (Feb 2, 2015)

That's why I want to try it because I think it will help me learn about lighting and plus I think the flash would disturb a sleeping baby,


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 2, 2015)

The Visual Science Lab. Search results for LED

Kirk Tuck is a smart dude, and he likes LED panels. He's written quite a bit about their benefits and limitations.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 2, 2015)

Only continuous lighting I would consider are made by Arri


----------



## AKUK (Feb 2, 2015)

I forgot to mention that I also own a couple of Lencarta LED 1000's, which I review on the website. These are LED light units that look similar to a monolight but have the ability to use Bowens S modifiers. The power output is controllable via remote as well as on the light itself. The ability to use modifiers though is a huge bonus and something that the vast majority of continuous lighting systems don't offer. They also stay cool too, making them much safer to use around infants.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 2, 2015)

I have to say that I am always amused when someone says "underexposed" on a shot that's clearly intended to be dark. My pro-tip of the day: look at the image, not the histogram.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 2, 2015)

Ive got 3 600watt Lencarta flashes and they are great


----------



## Braineack (Feb 2, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I have to say that I am always amused when someone says "underexposed" on a shot that's clearly intended to be dark. My pro-tip of the day: look at the image, not the histogram.



glad I could assume you today.

pro-tip of the day:  with those camera settings resulting in such a dark image, what would the photographer wanting to shoot at f/8.0 as well as a brighter image do?  please answer while making sure to ignore the point I was bringing up.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 2, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I have to say that I am always amused when someone says "underexposed" on a shot that's clearly intended to be dark. My pro-tip of the day: look at the image, not the histogram.



Agreed. While it's important for newcomers to understand and aim for "correct exposure" whilst learning about photography and lighting, people shouldn't let that be the be-all-and-end-all of it. Artistic stamp should always trump it. If you look at a great deal of Jeremy Cowart's work of late, technically that is considerably underexposed but the images have their own quality as a result. 

Ultimately, it all depends upon what you are trying to achieve with the final image. If you become bogged down with technical perfection and that is your sole focus, then you'll never expand beyond that point.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 2, 2015)

I considered my lighting style more cinematic, and that it's almost always under exposed when compare to traditional studio lighting style.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 2, 2015)

@Buckster, how can you disagree with a question?


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 2, 2015)

We do mostly indoor formal portraits.  Anywhere from 2 to 4 speedlights. 43 inch brollys and 40 inch softbox umbrellas are what I normally use. 
I have a few shot with regular 36 inch  shoot through umbrellas, but the brollys are my favorites. 
I like speedlights over studio lighting because of the portability. 

Continuous lighting gives you the advantage of "seeing" the light change as you make adjustments,  but strobes stop motion and require less power to get the same exposure.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 2, 2015)

Braineack said:


> @Buckster, how can you disagree with a question?


1st, because your question was already answered earlier in the thread, and it was addressed to you so that you wouldn't miss it.

2nd, as someone who wants to pretend to be a knowledgeable photographer on this forum, you should ALREADY know the variety of viable answers to the question you asked.

3rd, because it wasn't a serious question in the first place.  It was a snarky question that was posed to actually act as a snarky (yet ignorant) statement.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 2, 2015)

your answer wasn't great, to be honest. and you missed MY point completely and focused on trying to be an internet crusader trying to rid the internet of snarkiness.

In that video he has to shoot at f/2.8, 1/60sec, and ISO 500 coupled with the fact that the shot is underexposed (purposefully or not--I'm going with not, based on his camera settings and final images).  That's like the perfect argument against continuous lights.  What happens when I want to shoot at f/11? (there's that damn question again)  Those 30 lumens strip lights will be worthless.

If we turn on a room light, as you suggest, then the shot is completely ruined as you won't get that dark background. Plus that alone would probably overpower the strip lights in general and render them useless.

And buying more strip lights or bringing in more lamps is just mixing color temps and causes all sorts of other issues and sorta defeats the purpose.

As far as ISO, I shoot a D600 (one of Nikon's best low-light sensors) and wouldn't want to shoot portraits at ISO 1600, actually it would be closer to 12,500 since I'd want to shoot at f/8 or f/11.  Even at f/11 on my 200mm most portraits aren't completely in focus--my avatar for example, was shot at f/8 and my ears aren't in focus.

That that doesn't even touch shooting at 1/60, so a tripod would be a must and you'd have to make sure your subject stays very still. Plus you want ever be able to freeze any sort of movement. Nor does it touch on them being hard to mount on your camera if you wanna shoot in any other situation; they just lack any versatility.

I absolutely _agree_ that being able to see how the lights are lighting the subject in real time is great;  I never disputed that, which was your point.

As someone pretending to be knowledgeable and after just running 3 circles around my cat, so my point of view is pretty damn valid--agree with it or not.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 2, 2015)

So what do we take away from this?

That the guys who threw together a $50 DIY continuous lighting kit did NOT after all produce a universal lighting system, suitable for shooting at f/11 with a 200mm, or for shooting rocket launches, or whatever? Because that's not really a surprise.

That continuous lighting is unusable and stupid? Because that's going to come as a surprise to some really very successful photographers.

Is there, in short, a _point_ in here someplace? Or is it just snarking?


----------



## AKUK (Feb 2, 2015)

I think what is being lost now amongst all the benefits and drawbacks to using both systems, is the intended purpose the OP laid out initially. Yes, flash has action stopping ability that continous light doesn't. It has a broader power output than CFL or LED. However, the OP isn't looking for an all encompassing lighting solution for every and all subjects and setups. What she is looking for is a lighting solution to a very specific subject matter. That is newborn babies.

Tiny little individuals that lack virtually all motorskills and are asleep the vast majority of the time anyway. The OP isn't going to need action stopping power. It's a newborn baby, not a water-filled balloon we're going to stick with a needle. The babies won't be moving. Even if the child is awake, they tend to hold their arms into their chests anyway. A lot of newborn photography is shot at shallow depths of field too because it adds to that dream-like quality that many parents like in a photographers work, so again, I don't think shooting at f/11 is going to be a prerequiste of the system. Depending on the lens used, that depth of field also may not be required. 

The OP has also stated she doesn't want to use flash as it can disturb and upset a baby - something you do not want happening during a shoot, which I can attest to personally. So while we can bang on about the best lighting systems available based upon our own requirements, we aren't helping the original poster if the answers aren't geared specifically to her requirements.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 2, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> So what do we take away from this?



that continuous lighting setups have both pros and cons that should be considered before investing in.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 2, 2015)

AKUK said:


> So while we can bang on about the best lighting systems available based upon our own requirements, we aren't helping the original poster if the answers aren't geared specifically to her requirements.



Welcome to TPF!  Most conversation on this forum will end up with the same people arguing


----------



## AKUK (Feb 2, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> AKUK said:
> 
> 
> > So while we can bang on about the best lighting systems available based upon our own requirements, we aren't helping the original poster if the answers aren't geared specifically to her requirements.
> ...



I don't think I've ever been on a forum that didn't have the same, haha!


----------



## Braineack (Feb 2, 2015)

what's the point of the internet if we can't argue about thing, even stuff we agree on?


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 2, 2015)

Braineack said:


> what's the point of the internet if we can't argue about thing, even stuff we agree on?


Porn


----------



## AKUK (Feb 2, 2015)

Well I've heard that it's to share collective knowledge and communicate, although we all know its primary function has always been to look at naughty pictures and videos.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 2, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Only continuous lighting I would consider are made by Arri



Arri has a reputation for making great fresnels, no doubt, but they're not really known outside of the "can" style of lighting for film and television. I've used Arri quartz lamps, they're solid, but honestly I don't totally understand what makes them so special.

The lens movement is primative and clunky, there is no ballast with quartz so it's pretty much just a can with a bulb in it and a spring clip to hold in screens with a lens plopped in front.

Maybe other brands suck REALLY bad, I don't know, and I'm sure their ballasted lamps like the big HMIs and the new high wattage LED cans are superior with more to go wrong. But none of this is really appropriate for baby photography.

At this price point, Lowell is better known for FL and LED anyway.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 2, 2015)

AKUK said:


> Well I've heard that it's to share collective knowledge and communicate, although we all know its primary function has always been to look at naughty pictures and videos.



That's pretty much been my experience since I was 12 ... Gophernet nudies ... those were the days.


----------

