
Choosing between continuous light or flash for portraits
Saturday 1 June 2024, 21:42 by Nando Harmsen | 3,325 views | 2 commentsThis article was translated from Dutch with the help of AI. Read the original.
When existing light is not enough, you need to add your own light. You can use a flashgun or continuous light. Choosing between them can be difficult, as both have advantages and disadvantages. I have listed them for you.
Using your own light has many advantages. It can brighten dark areas and significantly improve the quality of the light. It prevents ugly shadows, light coming from an unwanted direction, or high ISO values.
You can combine existing light and your own light source seamlessly. Nothing in the photo shows that flash was used. Or that a continuous light source was used, as that is also possible. In the past, this was a lamp. Now, in almost all cases, it is an LED panel or a COB LED lamp.

What is best to use? Continuous light or flash. Ask different photographers, and you will get different answers. It may well be that there is no single answer, and that everything depends on preference and circumstances.
That is why I have listed some advantages and disadvantages. You can then decide for yourself what is most suitable for your own photography.
Flash and no flash
The biggest difference between continuous light and flash is the flash itself. A flashgun gives a short burst of light. Continuous light is... Well, continuously on.

A flash means that there is light for only a short moment. This can be dazzling, but otherwise it has no effect on the ambient light. If you use continuous light, the surroundings will also be lit continuously. It can ruin the atmosphere.
Bright and not so bright
The energy used by continuous light is released all at once by a flash. As a result, a flashgun can always produce much more light during that short flash. In other words, you have more light available.

Continuous light often means you still need to use high ISO values, unless the light is very close. A flashgun gives you more freedom when positioning it. You can cover a greater distance.
Portable and easy-to-move light source
If you need a lot of light, continuous light often means using large LED panels or a very powerful COB light source. They also need a lot of energy, in the form of a battery or even a mains socket.

Because a flashgun only has to provide light for a short time, it can be much more compact. It also needs much less energy, so you need less heavy batteries. It becomes portable.
Seeing the light and not seeing it
A flashgun only gives light when you take a photo. That means there must be existing light to see your subject and to focus. But more importantly, you only see exactly where there is light and where there is no light after you have taken the photo.

Continuous light lets you see immediately where the light falls on the model and where it does not. You can already adjust the direction of the light without having to take a test photo.
What is your preference?
As mentioned earlier, one is not better than the other. Sometimes a flashgun works better, and sometimes continuous light is more pleasant. But it is also mainly a personal preference. What is your preference? Share it in a comment below this post.

About the author
Nando Harmsen has been photographing for more than 40 years. He specialises in wedding photography and landscape photography. Nando also gives talks, workshops, masterclasses and photo trips, and regularly reviews new and interesting equipment.
You might also like
-
LED versus flash: which is better?by Elja Trum
-
Elinchrom announces LED 100 C continuous lightby Elja Trum
-
Godox announces V100 flashgunby Elja Trum
-
Review: SmallRig RM 40C mini LED video lightby Nando Harmsen
-
Combining Coloured Light with Flashgunsby Frank Doorhof
2 comments
-
Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 4 June 2024 at 10:53 | replyIk gebruik sinds kort een Godox speedlite V1c. Die heeft ook continue licht om te zien hoe het licht valt op een model.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.
Het nadeel van continue licht is het energieverbruik, vooral als je veel licht nodig hebt voor een foto te maken.
We proberen toch zuiniger om te gaan met energie. Dan past het niet om dergelijke energievreters te gebruiken. Dan gebruik ik liever een flitser.
Ik heb 3 Studioflitsers die op het lichtnet werken en het instellicht gebruikt 150W per lamp. Dat is dus 450W samen. Het instellicht gebruik ik zo kort mogelijk juist om het onderwerp uit te lichten. Daarna gaat het instellicht uit en werk ik met de flits.
Ik geef dus de voorkeur aan flitslicht boven continue licht omwille van het energieverbruik.
Nando, dank voor jouw helder verhaal. -
guest wrote on Tuesday 4 June 2024 at 22:09 | replyIk werk al jaren met flitslicht maar sinds vorig jaar begonnen met ledlicht. Ik ben er heel tevreden over vooral omdat ik vaak op binnenlocaties fotografeer met modellen en een flitser geeft dan toch niet altijd het gewenste effect. Ik heb wel ledlampen met hogere wattage en waarvoor je ook normale lichtvormers kan gebruiken. Een wat hogere ISO is nodig maar dat kunnen de huidige camera's prima aan.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.
Have your say
Please note: Articles older than a week can only be commented on by signed-in visitors.Would you still like to comment? sign in or create a free account.
Become a better photographer every week
A practical photography tip in your inbox every week.
39,219 photography enthusiasts already receive the tips! More about the weekly mail. Or keep up to date via
Facebook.

Elja Trum


