Why would a photographer use flash lamps for a studio shoot, for which
one could achieve the same lighting with standard lights (for
instance, those used for cinematography)?  Aside from perhaps not
blinding your subject between shots (which is a dubious reason
anyway), what are the benefits?

Thanks
- Rob

A flash is more manoeverable than studio lighting, so a photographer
can quickly take many shots with different lighting effects.

Remember a photographer's time is very important.

Also, he may be working with an expensive model.

Thanks, probonopublico, for your comment.  However, I'm used to
working with very lightweight supplemental lights for video
production, which are as portable as anything else.  With fixed
lighting already illuminating the overall studio, it seems like these
additional lights could certainly be used as easily as flash.  In
fact, they can be managed more easily in some ways because they don't
require synch with the camera.

Thanks
- Rob

I am not sure about 'standard lights'

- but the last time I was in a photographer's studio (about 25 years
ago) the model was getting cooked under a load of pretty powerful
lights.
I expected to smell frying bacon

Actually I hurried things along, not out of compassion for the lass,
but because the pubs were about to close.

Colour temperature of xenon flash is very good. Photoflood is good too
but as mentioned by frde they require good ventilation and liquid
refreshment. Also only last a few hours before burn out -- lamps that
is, not frde one trusts.

Within reason, the higher the light output (easily obtained from
flash), the better the photograph because one can use slower film with
attendant smaller grain. Modern film stock is now superb though so
requirements are much relaxed. Post processing has also revolutionised
all forms of photography too.

Best

I owned and operated a photography studio for a couple of years maybe
i can help. First i will start with the down side of hard lighting
(which is what you are calling standard lighting) . first off hard
lighting is just that , hard, the light does nothing for the
complexion of the subject and essentially makes every imperfection
aparent (especially on a close shot) . this problem can be solved
using hard lighting but not without a considerable amount of money.
also finding good qualitly bulbs with neutral light (ie not to blue or
to red, which can cast a bluish haze or red haze distorting all the
colors over everythin) is difficult and expensive. hard lighting also
lacks appropriate controls for the variables a photographer
incounters. although there are instances where hard lighting is
prefered i.e. when you want things in the picture to stand out clearly
like shadows or edges etc.

now for the advantages of the flash. it does blind your subjects which
in and of itself can be highly entertaining. it also provides a softer
light making imperfections and edges less apparent. and since most
photographs are taken of the face or as the face being the main
subject of the picture this is appropriate (after all retouching can
be done but if the zit on your head is to big then it could be
expensive). The flash also has the bonus of being adjustable in
intensity . this is very important to photographers, because when you
take a picture you are worried about what is called the apetaure and
the shutter speed. the amount the shutter is allowed to open and how
fast it opens and closes. when the photographer sticks a device in
front of your face and hits the flash he is measuring the amount of
light so that he can appropriatly set the shutter speed and the
apeture. these two things work closly together and if there is too
much or too little light then the picture could be over or under
exposed , resulting in a bad picture.  especially if he is trying any
kind of effect on your picture. and yet another reason is that the
flash is always what it is as far as amount of light intensity color
etc. the flash works off of a set of capicators these are units which
hold electricty and let it go in a burst . while the amount of
electricty traveling through a hard light is variable which in turn
means that the light is varible to prove this just look at your
computer screen for a while then have someone else in the house turn
on a buch of electric objects , your screen dimmed slightly and the
blues became darker didnt they. this never happens with the flash
since the electricty is stored in capacitors before it is used and is
let out in a burst which is always the same.

check this website in the q & a section for more info on everything
about lighting http://www.lightingmagic.com .

As we can see, photography often attracts nerds, and more
surprisingly, photographers who often don't know what the hell they're
talking about when it comes to photography technique. I will try my
best to meet these expectation:

Under a continuous light source (what some are calling standard, hard,
whatever) it gets hot.  Bad for ice cream shoots and people. Also, the
amount of light is much less than strobe lights (flash, studio lights,
whatever) as stated by nerd #5, though I would have to disagree with
the control of light thing, the control of light is of "quality" not
source, and both can used to the same effect.

Also, the constancy of "color temperature" in strobe lights is
important to some photographers. The light from strobes is a result of
heating gases and is consistent through the life of the bulb, hot
lamps have a filament on which carbon forms and changes the color of
the light.

And as a last comment, so as to not obviate my empty and pathetic
life, I will say that "standard" lights are mighty bright and result
in the shading of the eyes and squinting, whereas "flash" allows the
subject to relax before being cruelly blinded by the burst.

A well controlled and sufficient flash in a studio can also "blow out"
a background. In digital photography this is particularly handy as
even a black background can be blown out stark white with a hot enough
light (and a good enough photographer). This enables the photographer
to manipulate the picture later on so that the subject appears in a
clean white emptiness and/or also allows the photographer to later add
some other elements to the background that weren't physically there
when the picture was originally taken.

Here are two examples of a blown out background. The first one has a
secondary graphic that was added by the photographer later. The
technique can be used when photographing products in order to limit
extraneous distractions and also to remove any background depth
prespective in the background of a portrait type photo so as to aid
the appearance of floating or of mist.

http://www.micromart.co.uk/images/productreview/1528/TRUST738AV.jpg

http://www.photostudio.org.uk/2003-06-29/images/Faye%20-%20White%20Background.jpg

Yes, these photos were obviously retouched later, but initially, in
order to save an inordinate amount of work, its easiest to just blow
out the background with a flash than try to remove it by hand using a
photo manipulation program.

Anyway, for what it worth, that's what I know about studio flash.

tutuzdad-ga