The article was about the time when flash (as we know it today) simply didn't exist. What we did have back then was extremely low-powered and very expensive electronic flash, and flashbulbs. From memory, the early electronic flash units cost a minimum of 4 weeks wages although, to be fair, as a young trainee photographer, my earnings were low.
Continuous lighting was all that we had, and all that we could afford was those horrible Photoflood lamps. "Movie lights" were available but at unbelievable cost, and domestic electricity supplies couldn't handle the amperage. At the time, I was a trainee photographer working for a large studio, and we only had Photofloods. Even David Bailey, hugely talented and successful, used them.
Garry’s post assumes (maybe asserts, it’s a while since I read it) the use of modelling lights, which obviously does all of that but without being bright enough to create a decent image and dazzle the subject.
And of course when learners are talking nowadays about continuous sources they’re likely to be purchasing cheap led panels, which create a light that’s completely different to what we would get when we upgrade them to a decent flash in a good sized modifier. To the point where a new user is unlikely to be able to create something ‘attractive’.
@Phil V is right, people tend to go for useless continuous lighting that cannot be modified, it's made down to a price, it's OK for video but unsuitable for nearly all still photography.
The article's closing paragraph said, "And I still tell people in the Lighting Forum to use flash for still photos, not to use continuous lighting."
I agree about dazzling the subject. But there is very real value to using continuous light sources, while learning Lighting...
I also counsel,
- "Use a continuous light source when you are LEARNING the placement of lighting...
- MOVE the source around the face of your willing subject (various positions around the clock and immediately to the sitter's side vs. closer to lens position (and in betweeen) --, and SEE immediately what the different positions of light do to the face of the subject, to flatter them or even to make they appear hideous! Flash will not educate you about source position as fast as using a continuous light source, both about shadows and about how the lighting position can emphasize some features and make some things less apparent in the photo.
- Learn to FLATTER with light, not merely to ILLUMINATE...those are two very different things that lighting can achieve. Most folks merely ILLUMINATE. The artist flatters the subject.
The very readily attainable inexpensive flash turns the learning process into,..
- Place light
- Shoot subject
- Process film/digital image
- See a not-fully satisfying result, so try again...(return to step 1)
...and there is not a lot of learning, and it happens much more slowly. Because you do not SEE what happens until the very brief flash of light, and later examination of the photo.
Use a continuous source especially at the beginning of your learning process, THEN get yourself some flash units, and place THEM where your eye has taught you will more likely flatter your subject. A flash that has continuous modelling light will help to refine the placement of the source to best advantage, without dazzling your subject.
You've made some valid points, continuous lighting (when fitted with [for example] a S-fit mount that allows flash modifiers to be fitted) is an an excellent learning tool because it shows, very accurately, where the shadows fall and the depth of those shadows - and it's the negative lighting - the shadows - that are important. In theory only, studio flash modelling lamps do the same thing, but they are never bright enough to make the ambient light irrelevant, which means that the room needs to be in near-total darkness, and very few people see the need to darken the room.
But, if the room isn't darkened, although the modelling lamps will show where the shadows fall, they won't show the depth of those shadows.
But, I stick with my statement that people should use flash for still photos, not continuous lighting. Even hotshoe flash produces better results than continuous lighting, but the modelling lamps and much higher power of studio flash is in a different league entirely.
