Why use studio strobes instead of bright continuous lights for photography?
Asked 4/15/2014
1 views
2 answers
0
I’m new to studio lighting and trying to understand why photographers buy strobes instead of using very bright continuous lamps. I know strobes can be triggered wirelessly and only fire when the shutter is pressed, but what are the real advantages beyond that? For example, if I want white blown-out backgrounds or dark, dramatic sports portraits, why wouldn’t a powerful continuous light work just as well? I’m especially confused about power ratings and whether brighter continuous lights could be a cheaper substitute.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
14
Studio strobes are actually much, much, EXTREMELY MUCH more powerful than any remotely sane continuous lighting setup (at lighting scenes for photography).
This is because a strobe delivers its ridiculously high intensity light only for a ridiculously short time - usually shorter than your shutter speed.
For example, the AlienBees B400 provides 7000 lumenseconds over 1/2000th of a second. To get the same light intensity in continuous lighting from incandescent light bulbs (which provide about 16 lumens per watt) would require 875kW or about fourteen thousand 60 watt light bulbs!
Even if you assume that for studio photography, you won't need shutter speeds shorter than 1/100s and thus require your continuous lighting to deliver the same amount of light only over that much longer time, it would still take 44kW or 730 bulbs. Even if you used LEDs (which are much more efficient, but AFAIK not considered usable due to color issues) it would still be about 8kW.
Apart from the price of that absurd power consumption - that energy has to go somewhere! The continuous lighting would heat your studio like a sauna and most likely also cause massive sunburns.
Originally by user25699. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user25699
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The big advantage of strobes is not just triggering convenience—it’s that they deliver a huge amount of light in a very short burst. That makes them far more effective for photography than practical continuous lamps.
Key benefits:
- much higher effective light output: a strobe concentrates its energy into a brief flash, so matching that with continuous light would require enormous power
- freezes motion: the flash duration can stop subject movement and even reduce blur from small camera shake
- less heat and discomfort: continuous lights bright enough to compete would be very hot, power-hungry, and uncomfortable for subjects
- easier to achieve studio looks: very bright flash output helps overpower ambient light, light large scenes, or create clean white backgrounds and controlled dramatic portraits
So while continuous lights are useful, they usually can’t match strobes for raw photographic lighting power, motion stopping, efficiency, and comfort. In studio photography, watt-seconds on strobes are useful because the light is delivered in a burst; comparing that directly to household or general-purpose lighting specs is not straightforward.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Studio strobes vs speedlights for portrait work: pros, cons, and when power matters
Can I use the same light stands and softboxes for studio strobes and continuous LED lights?
Should I buy a home studio lighting kit or build my setup piece by piece?
What flash power do I need for small still-life photography at around f/5.6?
How much strobe power do I need for indoor/outdoor portraits and small group shots?