Light and shadow - flash or continuous light?

With the increasing convergence of photography and video in one device, more and more photographers are using the same (continuous) light for both. What consequences does this have for flash technology and for tomorrow's shoots?

 

1) Do you work with flash or continuous light on shoots?

 

2) What do you see as the advantages of each technique in the studio and on location?

 

3. have you already combined both techniques?

 

4. do the respective techniques also change the way you work with the clients/models, because the light has a different effect on them?


Katja Ruge, photographer and musician, katjaruge.de

1.

I love both, because each light for itself has its own characteristics. I started using continuous light, which is actually meant for product photography, for portraits years ago. It's a very even light with soft shadows. If I want a lighting effect behind the model to go with it, I often use an additional small flash for that.

2.

Today both go on location, where I usually work, because the technique has become so easy and good.
Great are now the combination lights, they simply save a lot of fuss, but also have their price.

3.

Absolutely, and of course with daylight in each case. Simulating daylight with Arris and then flashing on it with a honeycomb is a beautiful effect. Everything is bright and sunny, but the portrait is also crisp and has a nice effect in the eye.

4.

I really only work with flash when I know my protagonists can (ab)do it. Someone who is not used to a rush of flashes, I try to shoot more with daylight or continuous light. But of course, the look I want for the pictures comes first.

 

Eberhard Schuy, photographer and lecturer, schuyfotografie.de

1.

For a good two years now, we have been working exclusively with continuous light in the studio, but also on location.

2.

Are there still advantages to flash? I don't see them. With current camera technology, in which even higher ISO values are possible without any loss of quality, all the demands of everyday study can be met, with the exception of a few extreme situations. Short exposure times are no longer a problem. Even splashes in still-life photography (liquids) can be realized without problems. Good continuous light can also be precisely adjusted in the Kelvin and color values. The overall mood of the image can be reproduced much more authentically without much effort, or it can be adjusted individually. In the studio, especially in still life and product photography, we thus have the possibility to emphasize fine color nuances of the objects or to show them particularly clearly by different settings on the individual lights. A significant advantage for me is the ability to judge the light perfectly. The differences between modeling light and flash light are eliminated.

3.

The combination of flash and continuous light can certainly be attractive for some effects, but it is rather rare in daily work. Such effects are used rather sparingly in professional photography. We have done a few shots this way, but the percentage is probably less than one percent in my commercial photography.

4.

In people photography, one of the great advantages for me is that the pupils of the models are reproduced authentically. We know this when the modeling light was dimmed so as not to dazzle the people in front of the camera too much and the flash then made the pupils look very large. When working with continuous light, I also have an influence on this. On set, especially when clients are in the studio, it is certainly very individual to evaluate. Some like the studio feeling with the typical flash and beep noises, I myself love the quietness of still life photography, which allows me to work in a concentrated way. Here, too, the customer, who is often standing right next to me, expects a new "aha" experience with every flash. I work much more discreetly and relaxed with continuous light, which also influences the general atmosphere in the studio.

 

Stefan Ditner, photographer and cameraman, stefanditner.de

1.

If it can be arranged, I still prefer flash. Although modern sensors require less and less large amounts of light, I still see certain advantages in flash. Especially in the studio or on location with models.

2.

The contemporary flash heads are small and compact, but still have a lot of power. This makes me freer when it comes to lighting design. Especially with large indoor subjects with a lot of depth, I can operate and design the entire depth of the room with two to three flash heads without worry. If I work here with continuous light, I usually need several larger units. More time and transport effort are often the result, perhaps even more personnel. Of course, nowadays there are also very compact LED panels, which are also used a lot. When I shoot, they are of course indispensable today. They are just as light and variable in color temperature. Nevertheless, they are very limited in their light output in large motifs. If you then need more power, the panels become already quite large, heavy and finally also very expensive. Therefore, if not necessary, as in photography, I try to do without them as much as possible. Because in my experience, it is also only the very high quality LED panels that deliver clean color spectra that require little correction in post-production. Regardless of whether you like the specific aesthetics of the LED panels. Personally, I much prefer the traditional step or Fresnel lamps, whether daylight or tungsten. They immediately create a more natural look in my eyes (if it is desired) and less modulation is needed. But these are a fortiori somewhat unwieldy and less practical for photography in some ways. Another argument, which may already seem outdated, is that flash gives me more sharpness and better images. Especially with large prints. I am still convinced of that. The flash creates more plasticity and three-dimensionality. And there is another very subtle, perhaps underestimated psychological effect when working with models in the studio or on location: The momentum of the flash creates a certain caesura and provokes a new gesture. The flash is both the beginning and the end of a moment. A high energy flows through the space, which is usually also associated with a distinct noise. This helps all the actors, including the photographer, to immediately readjust and create the next moment. This takes milliseconds, but creates a very different, more intense atmosphere when photographing.

3.

Of course, I have also worked with both techniques simultaneously. However, there is often a point where the simultaneity of the techniques gets in the way a bit. Because creating a natural balance is sometimes tricky. Especially a homogeneous color temperature or a constant exposure can sometimes be a bit time consuming. Especially when you combine available light with flash. On location, this is sometimes a real challenge when the shoot takes longer and the lighting conditions are constantly changing.

4.

Apart from the psychological effect of flash mentioned above, I wouldn't think there are any other remarkable differences for clients or models whether you work with continuous light or flash. But this one should not be underestimated. If you work commercially, I assume that on average flash has a somewhat more exclusive character for the customer. Continuous light or even available light are techniques that most people are familiar with. Flash may still create that moment of specialness. And this is what we photographers should try to save.

 

Christian Ahrens, photographer, ahrens-steinbach-projekte.de

1.

Before I answer the question specifically, I'll briefly outline the contexts in which we use our light: As photographers with a focus on industry, science and medicine, we always work on location - that is, in production halls, workshops, hospitals, operating rooms or laboratories. Here we have to combine the existing conditions with the aesthetics we want, for example, to master mixed light situations or to replace the dull atmosphere of a boring neon-lit factory hall with something more exciting. For logistical reasons, only battery-powered systems are used. Photography dominates our work - we rarely produce video clips.
Flash or continuous light? It depends. However, small, handy and yet powerful flash units dominate most productions. They can be set up quickly, their output can be scaled excellently, and the light quality can be easily adjusted using all kinds of attachments, umbrellas, softboxes or color filters. Thanks to modern technology, you don't need clunky flash heads and monster-heavy generators anymore - the highly integrated battery flashes, e.g. from Godox, are inexpensive, powerful and professionally processed. 300 watt seconds from a 1.3 kg unit? No problem! Also important: thanks to modern radio technology, triggering is no longer an issue at all - the radio transmitters and (built-in) receivers work without complaint, even over long distances in a factory hall crowded with massive steel objects.

2.

Flash is the most universally applicable and scalable in my eyes. When some power is needed, LED reaches its limits very quickly. Flash simply delivers. But if you need a subtle face light or perhaps you want to stage a night scene, then it's time for continuous light: you're working in what-you-see-is-what-you-get mode, so to speak, and you can always see immediately what effect the light has and what mood it creates. In such cases, you can reach your goal much faster with continuous lighting.

3.

Yes, even very often. I have already mentioned the subtle face light (for example, created by an A5-sized LED that can be hidden in a machine). We also use a variety of small effect lights to complement the general flash setup. For example, a palm-sized LED light that can shine in all sorts of colors, a flashlight from Zweibrüder (which has focusable optics), or LED light sticks that come in a variety of designs.

4.

In our field of application I would say: rather no. Occasionally protagonists tend to close their eyes when firing the flash. In some people, flashing also causes an increased production of tear fluid - they then literally start crying in front of the camera. This would probably not happen with LED. But these are absolute exceptions and can always be managed somehow. I see the issue pragmatically and simply use whatever light leads most efficiently to the desired goal - however, it is definitely the case that LED continuous light has gained in importance in recent years: the quality of even very handy devices has improved significantly, the continuous lights have become brighter, have been given a better spectral composition and have thus become more and more attractive.

 

Oliver Rausch, co-founder of the Fotoakademie-Koeln and author of "Gestalten mit Licht und Schatten", fotoakademie-koeln.de

1.

Our studio is equipped with flash light. As a continuous light I sometimes use the modeling light, which is still equipped with halogen. Now and then we have to produce films or broadcast a live stream. Then LED light is used separately, often to replace the modeling light of the flash system and to make the setting suitable for filming.
From today's perspective, I would change the manufacturer of our flash system, because it still uses halogen light and the fans are much too loud for film shoots. What would be important to me today is not only a wide setting range for the flash output, but also an LED modeling light that is suitable for filming. But we don't film so often in the studio that I would be willing to buy 20 new flash heads for this.

2.

I've done countless training sessions on product photography (often for online stores) for mid-sized companies over the past few years. The understanding by some bosses of the need for a reasonably well set up studio is close to zero. Thus, graphic designers or copywriters assigned to the job often have to work in offices or an empty corner of a factory or warehouse. But some professional photographers I've coached on lighting also work in former factory buildings, where daylight through the glass roofs is a serious factor. If you don't want to work only at night, flash is a good option here. With the appropriate power of the flash system and a fast shutter speed, the daylight in the working area is "invisible" for the shot. The prerequisite is that the photographer already has an "idea" of the lighting effect even in a bright room from the lamp set-up alone. Some professionals manage this very well. But a beginner is hardly able to illuminate without an appropriately darkened room in which the modeling light is clearly visible. For the beginner, it is therefore advisable to have a darkened working area. In this case, a flash unit is not absolutely necessary, which also makes it much cheaper. Especially at close range, e.g. for stills, the luminance of continuous LED light is often sufficient. However, for larger sets with several people (fashion photography), the necessary luminance cannot yet be achieved with LED, e.g. to shoot with aperture 32 and 1/125 sec. At least not without everyone in the studio having to walk around with sunglasses. Then the flash has the advantage again.

3.

I like to use both lights at the same time. For example, the main light is often the flash. If the set is then a bit more complicated and a very weak brightening is no longer possible, because perhaps no correspondingly weak flash head is available, I only use its modeling light as a light source and regulate its brightness via the exposure time. The color temperature differences in the image can also be used, which would of course also be possible with adjustable LED light. But flash and modeling light can also be used for frozen movements and wiping effects in an image at the same time. The latter is not possible with LED alone.
Especially in the journalistic environment, I like to use a flash and a color filter in front of it to use this light in the foreground and combine it with the natural light.

4.

Again, it depends a lot on the context. When I'm standing in the studio, I don't notice flashes for a long time. Not even when ten lamps are flashing simultaneously at full power. And many professional models feel the same way. Some models, however, get scared or are afraid for their eyes, or the noise alone that some reflectors (snoots) make when they flash off is reminiscent of firecrackers, and models are afraid that something is wrong or that something is about to explode. An intimate portrait is then hardly possible. Radio transmitters, large cameras, countless tripods, etc. always have a somewhat technical look, however, and even an LED panel would hardly make a difference. After all, with an LED light, the contact with the model is not interrupted by the constant flashing.
But if you come into the office of a company boss for a portrait and all you have is a small camera and a small, old, beautifully patinated 500-watt film spotlight in his leather bag, this impression is already half the direction.

 

Christian Horn, photographer, fotografie-christian-horn.de

1.

I actually always work with flash - it's easy to control, the available power is very good nowadays even with battery-powered units, and with a little experience I don't find the setup too complicated. In rare cases, for example, a beamer is added as a continuous light or a modeling light to play with movement/blurring.

2.

From my point of view, the advantage of flash in the studio is that the sitter is not constantly blinded by the strong continuous light. Especially if you want or have to work with closed apertures, the continuous light needs quite a lot of power. Outdoors, it is very difficult to fight the sun with a continuous light. In my opinion, there is no way around the flash light in this situation. Especially with the technologies available today in battery-powered devices and techniques such as HSS, possibilities open up that are simply not feasible with a continuous light source.

3.

As already written above, great creative possibilities arise in the studio, e.g. with a beamer, which then virtually force a mixture of flash and continuous light. For event reporting, for example, I often mix unleashed flash with existing continuous light.

4.

I find that continuous light looks a bit more undefined and less contrasty. But that may be a subjective perception that I can't prove, of course. In any case, I manage to set a more contrasty light with flash. On the other hand, the flash and the reload time also slow me down a bit during portrait shoots. But I see this as a positive thing, because it also brings a lot more calm and concentration to the shoot, and ultimately I come home from a job with fewer triggers.

 

Bernd Schirmer, photographer, Instagram: @byesphotography

1.

I generally work only with flash (studio flash, outdoor flash), because I also see only here the possibilities of perfect light shaping and implementation. Partly I use four to five different light shapers and flashes.

2.

Clear advantage for me and my work with the medium of photography is and remains the flash / light shaper, because here I have the more flexible possibility of change on site in the studio. I can change from a hard light to a very soft light without shadow edges within a few seconds. I can also use blockers and reflectors that either strengthen or weaken it. I am also able to realign and reposition the flash on my model within seconds, depending on how I want the lighting effect. Light shapers allow me to set the shadow where I need it ad-hoc, get drama in an image, and use so many different sources to color, bend, block, or diffuse my light. A flash also allows me to regulate intensity, which continuous light can't do (yet). The wattage is critical for many shots. With continuous light, the power decreases, which means that I can't achieve one hundred percent full illumination in high quality. I then have to turn up the ISO quite a bit and the lens should be pretty wide open. This is at the expense of quality and image sharpness. Of course, this is also a matter of taste, but whoever likes it perfect is in my opinion out of place with continuous light. However, the conception is always decisive and of course everyone can experiment. Continuous light can look very harmonious and natural if you use it correctly. Sunlight/daylight, gently falling through a window, with a white wall as a reflector and combined with a lamp, a candle or a LED wreath, can create a fine and subtle shadow around a model and then I don't need much in the way of technology. An LED ring light on the camera also gives a consistent quality with every movement of the model. The disadvantage is then only the "circle" in the iris, which requires some editing skill with various graphics programs and lamps and candlelight must be "boosted". Neon tubes or LED tubes are used more and more for light effects and gimmicks. Of course, this is more flexible and space-saving, especially "on location". For advertising photos or fancy effects they are ideal in my opinion, also for very atmospheric and soft pictures. The good old flash can't keep up with that. For perfect illumination, however, the flash is the right choice.

3.

Yes. I have used LED ring lights and LED colored lights for a portrait shoot, but as a spoiled flasher, did not find the intensity intoxicating. I get better strengths with a color film, in my opinion. Gimmicks with neon tubes and long exposures for these cyber effects are not my style. But here there are specialists and artists who create true works of art and unique images with the help of graphics programs, which I also like.

4.

Not for me, for others certainly. But it allows beginners the simplified way into photography, because it is more experimental. Even cell phones can produce excellent results in video and images with continuous light - an no longer has to be a professional. In any case, it will please creativity and creative people, since there are now various possibilities of new image and light designs. Especially in the area of long time exposure, a lot of new effects can be implemented. Videographers are able to quickly integrate "Hollywood exposures" in their own four walls and productions reach a new level of quality and complexity, which did not exist ten years ago. What required a studio with exposure assistants and light meters back then, can now be done easily "on location" with a photo camera, LED combi as a plug-on system and two to three lighting elements.

Photo above: Petra Gerwers

Katja Ruge by Katja Ruge

Eberhard Schuy by Lina Fricke

Stefam Ditner by Lars Laion

Christian Ahrens by Silvia Steinbach

Oliver Rausch by Oliver Rausch

Christian Horn by Christian Horn

Bernd Schirmer by Lars Walther