Cockney Loc: London

Hi all does anyone have advise / opinion on the most versatile type I.e. Flash Vs Continuous lighting. This will be my first venture into studio work as a hobby so not looking to spend too much. Thanks Steve

amehta Loc: Boston

I think flash is better to start with. Getting continuous lights which are bright gets expensive, though how bright you need depends on the ISO and shutter speeds you want to use.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I don't know what equipment you have. I would suggest that you don't start with continuous lighting. Learn to use your strobe first, off camera. You could get a simple umbrella and stand and learn to shoot TTL. You could learn to use you on camera flash as a fill light. You can do a lot with a single strobe.

Cockney Loc: London

Thanks David and Amehta I must say flash appeals the most thought I should start with two heads and a soft box plus one umbrella I am using a 7d and thinking of portraiture & still life.

amehta Loc: Boston

Yes, two heads is good. I'm not sure what you gain with one soft box and one umbrella. I would use two similar modifiers, so that balancing (or unbalancing) is easier. If you use two identical soft boxes, setting one flash to half the power of the other gives a fairly predictable result. With and umbrella and a soft box, you are guessing a little each time. There are enough variables with this set-up (flash power, distance to subject, angles), that keeping the modifier variable simpler helps.

Cockney Loc: London

Hi Amehta had't thought of that I guess that's two of a kind then probably two soft boxes thanks

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Cockney, welcome to the Hog.
In London there is a huge theater industry. Why don't you look on Craig's List and see if you can find some cheap used stuff that will work well for you.
I bought my current complete set-up for $250. I got three Sunpac strobes, three umbrellas, a softbox, 5 stands, a counter weighted boom arm and a white/black background with a pretty nice stand. All for the price of one cheap speed-light!! Sure, I'd rather have profiting stuff, but it works well.
A typical setup is one softbox and two different size umbrellas.
But remember, light is light, no matter how it's produced. Good luck.
SS

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

SCORE!
:thumbup: :thumbup:

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

In addition to the very good opinions offered by the others, you might want to visit
http://strobist.blogspot.com/
It is dedicated to shooting with strobes, flash on and off camera including umbrellas reflectors etc. They also have a "101 and 102" coarse in lighting that are informative and discuss equipment (both home made and purchased) and technique.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

The least expensive way to get into studio lighting is to:

1.) Use a window and learn to reflect.

OR (more expensive)

1.) Use speedlights. YN560's (very nice manual flashes) are only $55.00 US each. Get two and you are good to go for quite a while (even one would do it.)

2.) Get cheapie Cowboy studio 7' light stands ($26.00 for two of them)

3.) Get a pair of cheapie YN triggers. $25.00 for the pair)


4.) Get two cheap soft boxes or umbrellas ($35.00 for the softbox and 15.00 for the umbrella)


You are good to go and can do a LOT with that set up.


The difference that you'll notice between continuous and speedlight lighting is that you can't "preview" what the light is going to do as it's off until the flash goes off so it's a little weird for newbies to get their mind around.

However...that doesn't last long and I think that the cost, size, weight benefit outweighs this issue.

daplight Loc: Kansas

One word of caution: If you use ac powered flash get radio slaves as you don't want synch cord hooked to your camera and anything plugged into ac as you could 'fry' your camera's circuitry. There are reasonably price radio slaves out there. Check out Cowboy Studios online. Most of the product line is Chinese, but functional and cheaper. Watch out on CraigsList for those getting out of the hobby too.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I recently bought this system mostly for video. The colors are beautiful under these lights and the price is wonderful.

Good luck.

http://www.amazon.com/Chromakey-Flourescent-lightstand-Fancierstudio-9004S-3/dp/B003Y31CAC/ref=sr_1_80?ie=UTF8&qid=1413650202&sr=8-80&keywords=photography+lighting+kits

Cockney Loc: London

A big thanks to everybody - I have just had a look at ' Strobist ' web site looks just what I need - I'll do a little more research before buying. Thanks again ......

Photocraig

Keep an eye out of a flash meter. Either reflected or Incident. Then you can expose manually with confidence and avoid the expense of TTL. Radio slaves are the BOMB but in a home studio start with optical like a wien peanut or similar. Then spend the money on wireless.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

I would highly recommend this set up as a starting point.
Too many aspiring portrait photographers are under the misconception that creating excellent portraits is a result of having proper lighting equipment. In fact it is understanding how to light the subject.

At best, a soft box with a speed light is challenging to properly light a subject as it is a guess the effect the light will have on the subject from a particular placement of that light. Judging if it has had the right effect by looking at the LCD on the back of the camera is impossible. This kind of lighting is difficult even for a seasoned pro.

To properly light the subject you must be able to see where the light is falling and it's effect on the subject BEFORE the shutter is released, and this cannot be done without modeling lights . . . or continuous lighting.

Think of the upside of starting with this continuous lighting package. With it there is a good possibility of learning proper portrait lighting . . . without it, doubtful.
The stands and soft boxes can be used for speed lights later if and when necessary.
They are the least expensive way to get started.
They are good for both still and video photography.

Just my humble opinion . . . again . .