Continuous lighting for portraits? - how much power and which soft box do i need?

Don't forget that the pictures will be mainly for instagram not high quality large prints.
You keep saying “mainly for instagram” but do you want to set a low bar as your upper limit?
No, but it's important for us that we can achieve good results fast - 5 to 10 minutes maximum. From what i saw, with no skills using flash (and even the Canon RP) i will get much better results much faster using LEDs. Do you really think that a little higher ISO will be so bad for instagram?

Like i said, i might get a flash too. But i think i will need to practice first with it, before i can get good results with it fast.
Just today I sold a high res version of a portrait I posted on instagram to one of the people in the shot. .
That could happen. But are pictures with ISO 800 or 1600 not also pretty good quality with a Canon RP?

How did the people 20 or 30 years ago shoot high quality pictures? It's not all about sharpness and technical quality, is it?
 
Don't forget that the pictures will be mainly for instagram not high quality large prints.
You keep saying “mainly for instagram” but do you want to set a low bar as your upper limit?

Just today I sold a high res version of a portrait I posted on instagram to one of the people in the shot. .
I was thinking along these lines earlier. What happens when the salon owner likes a photo and wants to make a poster for the shop? Or a client wants to buy a print?

These things do happen
We are the owners of the salon (it's a tiny Salon though). We might want to print if we take a really awesome picture, but until which ISO do you think we can print? If it's no bigger than DIN A 4 or DIN A 3 shouldn't ISO 800 still look nice?
 
Could the Godox FV150 be an alternative. It's an LED light with a flash integrated.
Possibly. Looks like an interesting option. In a quick search I didn't find anything that clearly states the light output, but with more time you might find something.

Gato
 
Don't forget that the pictures will be mainly for instagram not high quality large prints.
You keep saying “mainly for instagram” but do you want to set a low bar as your upper limit?

Just today I sold a high res version of a portrait I posted on instagram to one of the people in the shot. .
I was thinking along these lines earlier. What happens when the salon owner likes a photo and wants to make a poster for the shop? Or a client wants to buy a print?

These things do happen
We are the owners of the salon (it's a tiny Salon though). We might want to print if we take a really awesome picture, but until which ISO do you think we can print? If it's no bigger than DIN A 4 or DIN A 3 shouldn't ISO 800 still look nice?
800 should look good, if you can get a fast enough shutter speed and enough depth of field.

You mentioned in another post you won't be doing makeup. Will you be doing any retouch? Some of your clients may be unhappy being on IG without makeup or retouch.

Gato
 
If we take too long to take a good picture and the client gets bored or even needs to leave we might get worse pictures or none at all. It's not an excuse. It's being realistic and trying to get the best solution for what we need.

I might not even be able to get better results with a flash as long as i didn't really learn using it. But we want good results from the beginning.

That's why i might buy a flash too and practice with it. And as soon as i can get better results with a flash i could use it for the portraits. But i think for the beginning an LED lamp will bring better results faster. Don't you think?
Sounds like a you issue more than anything. Do you shoot in an auto mode because manual would take too long to stuff around with?
 
If we take too long to take a good picture and the client gets bored or even needs to leave we might get worse pictures or none at all. It's not an excuse. It's being realistic and trying to get the best solution for what we need.

I might not even be able to get better results with a flash as long as i didn't really learn using it. But we want good results from the beginning.

That's why i might buy a flash too and practice with it. And as soon as i can get better results with a flash i could use it for the portraits. But i think for the beginning an LED lamp will bring better results faster. Don't you think?
Sounds like a you issue more than anything. Do you shoot in an auto mode because manual would take too long to stuff around with?
Of course it is a me-issue. I don't have any experience with photography and flashes. I start from 0. That's why i think that with LED lightning i will be able to get better results faster at the beginning.

I don't shoot yet. I think i would try to shoot in half-auto mode. I would want to use a shutter time from 1/250 or 1/125 (if needed), set the aperture to f2 to f8 for the results i want (less or more depth of field) and let the camera chose the ISO needed. That's at least what i imagine how things could work. I don't have the camera yet, so i can't try it out yet.
 
Don't forget that the pictures will be mainly for instagram not high quality large prints.
You keep saying “mainly for instagram” but do you want to set a low bar as your upper limit?

Just today I sold a high res version of a portrait I posted on instagram to one of the people in the shot. .
I was thinking along these lines earlier. What happens when the salon owner likes a photo and wants to make a poster for the shop? Or a client wants to buy a print?

These things do happen
We are the owners of the salon (it's a tiny Salon though). We might want to print if we take a really awesome picture, but until which ISO do you think we can print? If it's no bigger than DIN A 4 or DIN A 3 shouldn't ISO 800 still look nice?
800 should look good, if you can get a fast enough shutter speed and enough depth of field.

You mentioned in another post you won't be doing makeup. Will you be doing any retouch? Some of your clients may be unhappy being on IG without makeup or retouch.
Yes we will do some retouch. But I am new to that too. So i will have to learn. It would be better to get ok results from the beginning.

People in Brazil are much more open minded to be on IG than people from Germany, where i am from. But of course we will only upload pictures if the people will look good on them.

 
I am also hoping that i can have enough light with LEDs if i move the light source close to the model. As far as i understood, double the distance from the model is 1/4 of the light. If that's true, i should get 4 times the amount of light if i move the light source as close as 1m to the model instead of 2m
 
Could the Godox FV150 be an alternative. It's an LED light with a flash integrated.
Possibly. Looks like an interesting option. In a quick search I didn't find anything that clearly states the light output, but with more time you might find something.
From what i read it's just 1/4th of the power of the Godox V1 or TT685. So that's not so much. Also it seems like it can't freeze the motion because the flash is on for too long. I think it might not be worth it for me and i rather go for an LED lamp + a Godox TT685.

Also interestingly it seems like the LED light of the FV 150 seems to be 1/4th of the power of it's flash. So that would make the LED light of 150 Watts about 1/16 of the power of the Godox V1 or TT685.

But if i have the light source with the Godox V1 at 2m distance from the model it would only be 4 times as strong as the LED light at 1m distance from the model and if the Godox V1 would be at 3m distance from the model, the LED light at 1m distance from the model should have the same amount of light.
 
Last edited:
RE:>> How did the people 20 or 30 years ago shoot high quality pictures? It's not all about sharpness and technical quality, is it? <<

For several of the people trying to help you here, 25 years ago was just like yesterday.

But in 1995, we did not use continuous light for professional portraits, with rare exceptions.

Continuous lights were too hot, they had too much glare, they singed softboxes, ...

I used a Lowel Tota-Light to illuminate large areas, but not for portraits.

Back in 1995, studio strobes were fairly big and fairly heavy, and brightness depended on price.

The controversy or contentious issues back then were, 1/ monolight compared with pack-and-head systems, and 2/ plug in studio strobes compared to battery powered camera-top flash, (which could be used off camera even back then, most often with a cord connecting the flash to a PC socket in the camera.

BAK
 
RE:>> How did the people 20 or 30 years ago shoot high quality pictures? It's not all about sharpness and technical quality, is it? <<

For several of the people trying to help you here, 25 years ago was just like yesterday.

But in 1995, we did not use continuous light for professional portraits, with rare exceptions.

Continuous lights were too hot, they had too much glare, they singed softboxes, ...

I used a Lowel Tota-Light to illuminate large areas, but not for portraits.

Back in 1995, studio strobes were fairly big and fairly heavy, and brightness depended on price.

The controversy or contentious issues back then were, 1/ monolight compared with pack-and-head systems, and 2/ plug in studio strobes compared to battery powered camera-top flash, (which could be used off camera even back then, most often with a cord connecting the flash to a PC socket in the camera.
What i meant by my question is: Do i really need the strongest light? Do i really need to shoot in ISO 100 to get good results? Didn't people back in the day shoot great portraits with less light or cameras that got grainy at higher ISOs much faster?

Especially because we will mainly use the pictures for Instagram and not for large prints.

When i look at this video - the photographer shot with the Apurutre D120 at 1/1125 at ISO 1000 at F3.5 and it looks great:

If i would shoot at 1/250 i should be able to shoot at a more shallow depth of field, no? Also he placed the lamp around 1,5m from the model. If i place it at 1m, i would already get double the light. Then also his lamp is half the power of the Godox LA200D.

So all together i should be able to get much more light in, if i shoot at 1/250 or even 1/125 and place the light closer to the model, no?

 
Could the Godox FV150 be an alternative. It's an LED light with a flash integrated.
Possibly. Looks like an interesting option. In a quick search I didn't find anything that clearly states the light output, but with more time you might find something.
From what i read it's just 1/4th of the power of the Godox V1 or TT685. So that's not so much. Also it seems like it can't freeze the motion because the flash is on for too long. I think it might not be worth it for me and i rather go for an LED lamp + a Godox TT685.
Not enough. Too bad, but won't work.
Also interestingly it seems like the LED light of the FV 150 seems to be 1/4th of the power of it's flash. So that would make the LED light of 150 Watts about 1/16 of the power of the Godox V1 or TT685.

But if i have the light source with the Godox V1 at 2m distance from the model it would only be 4 times as strong as the LED light at 1m distance from the model and if the Godox V1 would be at 3m distance from the model, the LED light at 1m distance from the model should have the same amount of light.
 
I am also hoping that i can have enough light with LEDs if i move the light source close to the model. As far as i understood, double the distance from the model is 1/4 of the light. If that's true, i should get 4 times the amount of light if i move the light source as close as 1m to the model instead of 2m
It is not unusual to work with a softbox within a meter of the subject. A 1 meter or 1.5 meter box in close can make very nice light.

But will your model be comfortable with a softbox 1 meter from their face? There is a physical aspect -- will they squint, or will their pupils shut down with bright continuous light? And a psychological aspect -- will they feel nervous or intimidated?

There is also a different look to the light as the distance changes. You get more "wrap" at closer distances, but also more falloff across the face. Look for videos illustrating the "inverse square law". Either way will work, it's just a matter of what looks good to you. Or of what will best sell your salon.
 
RE:>> How did the people 20 or 30 years ago shoot high quality pictures? It's not all about sharpness and technical quality, is it? <<
Technical quality was important, and much harder to get back then. I did my first professional photography in 1969. Looking back I'm amazed at what we did -- photography has become incredibly more easy.
For several of the people trying to help you here, 25 years ago was just like yesterday.

But in 1995, we did not use continuous light for professional portraits, with rare exceptions.

Continuous lights were too hot, they had too much glare, they singed softboxes, ...
In the studio we generally used much higher flash power. My most powerful flash today is 200 watt seconds. Back then we were using 1600 or 2400 WS. One photographer I worked with had two 1600WS lights in one softbox.

We were often working with medium or large format cameras that needed to be stopped down for depth of field. We were working at ISO as low as 25 and almost never higher than 160.

So we pumped in a ton of light, and as BAK said, the continuous lights we had back then were too bright and too hot for most portrait use. They would literally heat up the whole studio, often overpowering the air conditioning. Photographers who used continuous light were likely using a tripod and longish exposures -- which limited them to static poses.
What i meant by my question is: Do i really need the strongest light? Do i really need to shoot in ISO 100 to get good results? Didn't people back in the day shoot great portraits with less light or cameras that got grainy at higher ISOs much faster?
Not the strongest, but pretty strong. You have to look for a balance between technical quality and your client's comfort.
Especially because we will mainly use the pictures for Instagram and not for large prints.

When i look at this video - the photographer shot with the Apurutre D120 at 1/1125 at ISO 1000 at F3.5 and it looks great:

If i would shoot at 1/250 i should be able to shoot at a more shallow depth of field, no? Also he placed the lamp around 1,5m from the model. If i place it at 1m, i would already get double the light. Then also his lamp is half the power of the Godox LA200D.

So all together i should be able to get much more light in, if i shoot at 1/250 or even 1/125 and place the light closer to the model, no?
--
 
if you buy the stuff here in Germany and don't have a lot of space, I would recommend to you the rollei / jinbei. Build Quality is much better than anything Godox sells as a Softbox and weirdly, it is much cheaper. This is nearly the same as Westcott is selling in the US for much more.

https://www.rollei.de/products/klick-beauty-dish-mit-grid?variant=41805215793346

751c8b9342ef48b793a08f0ae89a191f.jpg.png
 
“How did the people 20 or 30 years ago shoot high quality pictures?
I can answer that:

we generally used ISO 64 and 100 film, or at a stretch ISO 400 film, and lots of it and Polaroid as a proofing material. Back then I was spending US 20 to 30,000 a year on film, processing and Polaroid per year (all billed to clients at marked up prices. And I was a midddlingly successful journeyman photographer. Many photographers in the tied above me were using 2-4 times that much film, processing, and Polaroid

Depending on the assignment and intended use and how the photographer liked to work that’s formats from 35mm to the medium formats (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17cm) and 4x5 inch with a monorail view camera. Lighting was mostly done with 800 to 4800 w-s packs and heads - sometimes multiples of those. My most technically demanding job required 20 2400 w-s packs and 40 heads to light up a half block long machine that transformed tons of molten aluminum into rolls 10 feet wide and I was shooting on both 35mm and 4x5. But for a typical editorial and business portrait I used 1 or 2 2400 w-s packs and up to four heads. The packs were not always set to full power but it was good to have it if needed.
It's not all about sharpness and technical quality, is it?
Since your question is about “high quality pictures” sharpness and technical quality are technical baselines, but without imagination and the ability to think and see, and an emotional and intellectual understanding of why one photo works when 20 or 40 (or more) of the same person or thing from the same shoot made with the same gear, don’t, all the technique and technical quality are meaningless. Outside of a photographer’s inherent imagination, sense of emotional honesty, and intellect, the way you start to understand why one photograph is better than another is to work your butt off, make mistakes, and move on using what you’ve learned as fuel for progress.

Being able to consistently make good high quality photographs might look easy but it’s not. It takes work. Making it look easy to others takes even more work.

Judge what I just spent half and hour writing by taking a look at my portfolio (links below)

--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
“If I have any advice to give, it is that a photographer should learn to work with the minimum amount of equipment. The more you are able to forget your equipment, the more time you have to concentrate on the subject and on the composition. The camera should become an extension of your eye, nothing more.”- Ernst Haas from the afterword to his monograph “The Creation” (1972
 
Last edited:
Ellis mentioned spending money on film, and touched on some other film-related topics.

35mm film did not become popular with newspaper photographers until around 1963-65. I was the first photographer to shoot 35mm film for a newspaper called L'Evangeline in New Brunswick, Canada in 1960, and I also shot 35mm pictures at weddings that year.

But for the next decade most of my wedding pictures were on medium format film, or 4x5 sheet film.

There was 120 and 220 size roll film. It was 6cm wide, but various cameras had different "lengths" to the frame, so a roll might have 6 pictures a roll, or 8, 10, 12, 14, 15 from 120, or double that from 220.

Most often, we referred to these as 120 cameras, or 2 and 1/4 cameras, or medium format cameras, or, for more specific referenced, 2 1/4 square or 645 or 6x9, etc.

Hasselblad, Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, and Rolleflex all made pro-level medium format cameras, and there were some cheaper models.

Film came in a couple of hundred versions, and it was our job to pick the film to give us the result we wanted.

We could buy color negative, color slide / transparency, black & white, and some specialty films, with low contrast, medium contrast, extra snappy, vivid colors, punchy reds for fashion or subdued reds for portraits. Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Ilford and others had lots of various "flavors" to pick from.

I mostly used Kodak film.

And there were many kinds and flavors of photographic paper, with lots of contrasts.

So before we left home, or the office, or the studio to photograph someone, we had to pick a camera, a lens, a film, a light or two or three, a photo film developer, a photo paper.

BAK
 
RE:>> How did the people 20 or 30 years ago shoot high quality pictures? It's not all about sharpness and technical quality, is it? <<
Technical quality was important, and much harder to get back then. I did my first professional photography in 1969. Looking back I'm amazed at what we did -- photography has become incredibly more easy.
For several of the people trying to help you here, 25 years ago was just like yesterday.

But in 1995, we did not use continuous light for professional portraits, with rare exceptions.

Continuous lights were too hot, they had too much glare, they singed softboxes, ...
In the studio we generally used much higher flash power. My most powerful flash today is 200 watt seconds. Back then we were using 1600 or 2400 WS. One photographer I worked with had two 1600WS lights in one softbox.

We were often working with medium or large format cameras that needed to be stopped down for depth of field. We were working at ISO as low as 25 and almost never higher than 160.

So we pumped in a ton of light, and as BAK said, the continuous lights we had back then were too bright and too hot for most portrait use. They would literally heat up the whole studio, often overpowering the air conditioning. Photographers who used continuous light were likely using a tripod and longish exposures -- which limited them to static poses.
Crazy - it was soo different. Thank you for sharing your experiences!
What i meant by my question is: Do i really need the strongest light? Do i really need to shoot in ISO 100 to get good results? Didn't people back in the day shoot great portraits with less light or cameras that got grainy at higher ISOs much faster?
Not the strongest, but pretty strong. You have to look for a balance between technical quality and your client's comfort.
I am still thinking that i might get away with higher ISO. When i look at that video it seems like the Canon RP can keep up with the highly regarded Canon R6 up to ISO 3200.


So i still think that for mainly Instagram i might be able to go up with the ISO quite a bit. That's why i still believe that i might be ok with constant light.
Especially because we will mainly use the pictures for Instagram and not for large prints.

When i look at this video - the photographer shot with the Apurutre D120 at 1/1125 at ISO 1000 at F3.5 and it looks great:

If i would shoot at 1/250 i should be able to shoot at a more shallow depth of field, no? Also he placed the lamp around 1,5m from the model. If i place it at 1m, i would already get double the light. Then also his lamp is half the power of the Godox LA200D.

So all together i should be able to get much more light in, if i shoot at 1/250 or even 1/125 and place the light closer to the model, no?
 
“How did the people 20 or 30 years ago shoot high quality pictures?
I can answer that:

we generally used ISO 64 and 100 film, or at a stretch ISO 400 film, and lots of it and Polaroid as a proofing material. Back then I was spending US 20 to 30,000 a year on film, processing and Polaroid per year (all billed to clients at marked up prices. And I was a midddlingly successful journeyman photographer. Many photographers in the tied above me were using 2-4 times that much film, processing, and Polaroid

Depending on the assignment and intended use and how the photographer liked to work that’s formats from 35mm to the medium formats (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17cm) and 4x5 inch with a monorail view camera. Lighting was mostly done with 800 to 4800 w-s packs and heads - sometimes multiples of those. My most technically demanding job required 20 2400 w-s packs and 40 heads to light up a half block long machine that transformed tons of molten aluminum into rolls 10 feet wide and I was shooting on both 35mm and 4x5. But for a typical editorial and business portrait I used 1 or 2 2400 w-s packs and up to four heads. The packs were not always set to full power but it was good to have it if needed.
It's not all about sharpness and technical quality, is it?
Since your question is about “high quality pictures” sharpness and technical quality are technical baselines, but without imagination and the ability to think and see, and an emotional and intellectual understanding of why one photo works when 20 or 40 (or more) of the same person or thing from the same shoot made with the same gear, don’t, all the technique and technical quality are meaningless.
That's what i think too. I don't think i need the best and most perfect gear. To get a really good picture is skill or maybe sometimes luck.
Outside of a photographer’s inherent imagination, sense of emotional honesty, and intellect, the way you start to understand why one photograph is better than another is to work your butt off, make mistakes, and move on using what you’ve learned as fuel for progress.
By "high quality pictures" i don't really mean the highest technical quality but pictures that stand out. They should of course have a good quality - but for mainly instagram use, can't i get that with ISO 1600? From what i have seen the Canon RP should be still good at higher ISO.

I know it won't be easy because it relies a lot on my skills as a photographer and to catch the perfect moment. I still believe that with constant light i might have better possibilities to catch that moment. But what do i know? I will only really know when i try out and see.

Some people said that starting with constant light helps to learn faster about what the light actually does, about placing the lights, understanding how it affects the shadows etc.
Being able to consistently make good high quality photographs might look easy but it’s not. It takes work. Making it look easy to others takes even more work.
I know it's not. But to me it seems like a flash compared to constant light is almost like film compared to digital, because i have to wait (of course not very long) until i see how the picture looks like. With constant light i will see immediately. So i might be able to learn faster. I don't have years to practice. I need good pictures as soon as possible.

Or do you think if i shoot in the same place all the time with the same lighting conditions (i could darken the window and close the door) it would be just as easy to use flash, because i would not have to change much with the settings?

Would i really get much better results with flash? Like - would people see the difference on instagram?

Judge what I just spent half and hour writing by taking a look at my portfolio (links below)
 
Last edited:
if you buy the stuff here in Germany and don't have a lot of space, I would recommend to you the rollei / jinbei. Build Quality is much better than anything Godox sells as a Softbox and weirdly, it is much cheaper.
In fact this softbox is 99 Euros for the 105cm variant. The godox 120cm variant is 40 Euros.

https://www.ebay.de/itm/18400941761...IykxSw7eTQuGZzq5CI81IKZklQ==|tkp:BFBMpJXMxoJh

But i would probably go for the 95cm variant (35 Euros), because of space reasons:

https://www.ebay.de/itm/18562034119...MGZCKyO2i1Ct+BnL5VGwcZJBOw==|tkp:BFBMuPH-xoJh

So for the price - Godox wins clearly. What would be the benefits of getting the Rollei?

It looks like it's better built. It might be worth it to spend a little extra. But do you think it is worth it for the quality of the light?

For the Rollei they say that it has a light characteristic similar to a Beauty-Dish with grid. As far is i understood a Beauty dish has a little more contrast - or am i wrong?

The Godox seems to be made a similar way though, also with silver coating inside, 2 diffusors and a Grid. Do you think they really have different light characteristics?

Do you think i will need the 105cm version or i could be fine with the 85cm version. Does it make much difference? A little softer with the bigger version, a little more contrast with the smaller one?
This is nearly the same as Westcott is selling in the US for much more.

https://www.rollei.de/products/klick-beauty-dish-mit-grid?variant=41805215793346

751c8b9342ef48b793a08f0ae89a191f.jpg.png
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top