May 8th, 2006, 10:39 PM
Any opinions on using constant vs. strobe lighting for headshots? I'm using a Chimera 8000 softbox kit (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=257304&is=REG&addedTroughType=search) with a 1000 watt hot light. I'm wondering if I should get the strobe light/speed ring for it.
May 10th, 2006, 06:26 PM
A 1000 watt hot light through a softbox is not whole lot of power for shooting stills. Long lenses are usually more flattering for portraits, and you may not be able to get a short enough shutter speed to get sharp pictures with hot lights and longer lenses. With strobes shutter speeds aren't really that important so you are not limited by that. Most strobe packs also offer variable power so that you can have more control over the depth of field.
I would try out the hot lights first though. Your setup may be able to give you what you want. Shallow depth of field is a good look for headshots. I would try it and see before dropping any money on more gear.
May 10th, 2006, 06:53 PM
Strobes make so much more sense for photography. Check out this (http://www.photo.net/learn/studio/lighting2/) article.
May 11th, 2006, 10:48 AM
Thanks for the responses, I'm going with the strobes.
In comparison to the hot lights, it was much easier to get exactly what I wanted using my friend's Alien Bee strobes. The hotlights were very useable, but the strobes got me to where I wanted to go with less hassle. By the way, the Alien Bees work great with the Avenger stands and Chimera softboxes.
My lesson for the day: Strobes make still photography much easier <smacking forehead>.
May 11th, 2006, 10:52 AM
Strobe may indeed be better, but I have seen many photographers use continous. Two reasons are that they can easily meter it, if needed, and the subjects don't blink when the strobe goes off.