I need advice choosing portrait lighting (continuous or flash)

[Arkitech]

I'm really interested in doing more portrait photography and I've been having a hard time determining if I should go with continuous or flash lighting. If you have experience in both, I would love to hear your opinion. I also would like to get an answer to a couple questions.

Which would be cheaper to purchase, a continuous or flash setup?

For continuous lighting, what wattage should I concentrate on? I'd like the ability to get high contrast images without photo editing.

Should I purchase the light\flash separately from the stands? I've seen some affordable lighting kits on Amazon, the reviews for the actual lights were favorable, but it seems like the stands are shoddy. My equipment needs to be portable and durable.

Thanks for any information or even good articles on this subject. I've read a couple, but most of the ones I've read don't seem to address the recent progress in continuous lighting.

 

[Syborg1211]

Cheaper to purchase - Both continuous and flash have their range of low to high end. I think generally continuous is less expensive on the high and the low end compared to flash. For inexpensive you can get the ones that use multiple fluorescent bulbs, and they are very solid setups, though delicate because of bulbs. Cheap strobes generally suck until you get into the Paul Buff range which aren't that expensive. Profoto is the high end of flash.

I can't really speak about the wattage levels of continuous lighting. I use a Westcott skylux which they claim is equivalent to 1200 Tungsten watts, and I wish it were brighter. You're going to have to shoot wide open and bump the ISO generally with continuous lights. I like shallow depth of field so it works for me, but I know for others the Skylux wouldn't cut it. I can say with quite certainty there will be no f/8 base ISO shots with the Skylux.

However, Paul Buff makes excellent strobes. I've owned their B400, B800, ABR800, and Einsteins, and they all work like tanks. I also really like the lightstands I've bought from them. Stay away from cheap light stands like Flashpoint! I generally wouldn't trust the light stands provided with certain brands of low end lights.

It all depends on what you like to shoot. I think there's more versatility with flash especially when it comes to overcoming any ambient light, but you lose the "what you see is what you get" from continuous lighting. I own over a complete studio's worth of Paul Buff flashes and modifiers, and I use the Skylux mostly these days since I like to shoot more soft and wide open stuff. My Einstein on the lowest power setting is stronger than the Skylux at max (which is bad for me since I couldn't shoot wide open with the Einstein at that point).

 

[CuriousMike]

Side question that I'm not sure how to ask/describe.

I've watched a few videos on Youtube about lighting/flash photography and I see what I think is continuous lighting on the model... yet when the photographer takes the photo, an additional "flash" pops.

I can't tell if the additional "flash" is coming from the continuous light source, or if it's from nearby.
I don't think I'm seeing back/rim lighting.

In otherwords, is it possible for continuous lighting to also have an instantaneous flash component ?

 

[Syborg1211]

Lots of flashes have a modeling lamp in them that can show you how the light is falling on the subject, and then when you trigger the flash the flash pops off at an entirely different exposure than the modeling lamp. Without the modeling lamp, it would be hard to focus or see where the light from the light will go. I've heard of people using the modeling lamp as a decent continuous light and not using the flash part, but these modeling lamps are not daylight balanced so the white balance gets funky.

 

[Denly]

Not an expert but a couple cheap flashes, remote trigger(if your body don't have RC), back drop, stand and umbrellas(or some DIY diffuser) will get you start for $200.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't really have any experience with continuous lighting (as distinct from ambient), but I struggle to imagine what advantages it would offer a person over flashes outside of the limitations of flash cycle times.

 

[CuriousMike]

I don't really have any experience with continuous lighting (as distinct from ambient), but I struggle to imagine what advantages it would offer a person over flashes outside of the limitations of flash cycle times.

Wouldn't the advantage be WYSIWYG ?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wouldn't the advantage be WYSIWYG ?

Well yes, I suppose. I didn't really think about it in those terms. Either type of rig will take some setup, and while the setup for rig A will be different than for rig B, in my mind I counted it as a wash. I suppose that isn't strictly the case when continuous lighting offers more real-time feedback, but I still imagine a photog would do plenty of chimping on his camera screen either way. Interesting to think about.

Continuous lighting would naturally allow you to shoot stills and video, too.

 

[Syborg1211]

Studio strobes at their lowest power setting still emit more light than most continuous lighting setups at their highest setting. So this means that if you're trying to blend natural light and studio light, you might have issues making it look seamless if the natural light isn't intensely strong. Though if you're trying to shoot in broad daylight, a strong strobe will work better.

The other thing is that the lower you set studio strobes, the farther their color temp veers from their calibrated daylight balance. So you get weirder color temps that are possibly more difficult to fix in post if you find yourself constantly shooting your strobes at minimum power.

I would say the two fit different shooting vibes. Stuff like beauty or glamour where you'll be shooting small apertures and all your light comes from your setup, studio strobes fit the bill. If you're more of a lifestyle shooter, continuous may suit you better.