Why would you use flashlights in a studio with wall sockets ? Charging batteries instead of using lights with a power cord doesn’t make sens.
But high CRI stuff exist for photographers :https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/LED-Light-Sources/ci/12248
What is the difference between this and a high-CRI mule flashlight ?
None, except that mule flashlights aren’t sold in pro stuff stores…but by no means you can’t use flashlights for photography if it’s more convenient in some situations.
Again, interesting. Do you carry yours? The Q8 is a great light but I cannot imagine “carrying” this brick! 
I carry mine on trips in the woods mainly or to light up the back yard. I only have one an Olight X7. I do find it a little big, but not at all too difficult to carry. If I need 9,000 lumens for a few minutes I have it, 5,000 lumens for 10 minutes, or over 2,000 lumens for 3 hours.
You know, something makes me think you don’t want anyone to “help you understand”, you want them to confirm your existing opinions.
Trying to call the metaphor of taking a portrait under a mercury vapor lamp some kind of straw man is a bit of a stretch. One of those makes it impossible to take photos normally. A low CRI source or a source with a strong color cast of any sort will make the results worse in proportion to how bad the color spectrum is, with monochromatic sources and poor sources like mercury vapor being worst, and sunlight and the best of the high cri sources being best. I shouldn’t need to explain the metaphor further. Also, attack the argument, not how it was presented or the person who presented it.
It is a lie to say that I called continuous lighting better for portraiture than strobes and flashes; I spoke only of the possibility of using flashlights when it’s already been decided that continuous lighting will be used. However, I can identify some situations where I would prefer continuous lighting. Firstly, the color temperature of a camera flash is rather cool, and you have a somewhat slow refire time while the capacitors recharge. A led light panel can often adjust the color temperature to any value you like, as well as adjust its brightness to any value you like, so with several of them you can adjust those settings individually, without needing to take a test shot to see the effect of your changes, and your changes have a very fine degree of precision. The modern led can produce sufficient light generally, although of course you don’t get the millisecond exposure of a flashtube going off. A flashlight doesn’t have adjustable CCT in the same way, but it can be gotten in whatever fixed CCT you like and ramped to whatever brightness you like.
You’ve made an error of your own in saying “Do you know that people squint their eyes when you shine 5000 lumens at them?”, as not only should it be patently obvious that there are ways to use a flashlight to light someone that do not include shoving it in their face and having them stare at it, but in fact I already addressed this in saying that the soda can lights would require “a diffuser when appropriate, just like you’d use with a small strobe or suchlike”. Simply bounce or diffuse the light to a small degree, and there will be no issue whatsoever.
“A” flashlight? Nah. I use loads of them! When I am taking photos of small objects, I will often grab a few soda can lights, a triple/quad light, and anything I have with good color quality and high output, and use it to get a good level of illumination. I’ve used flashlights to help the lighting for a few portraits too, since it’s what was handy. Sometimes I’ll grab my edc and use it to light something so I can get a better picture of it, but that doesn’t count as much, IMO. I do of course also have light panels. I don’t have a lot of strobes or flashes, because they really aren’t that convenient, and I’d rather spend the money on a flashlight which can be used both for photos and for other flashlight type things. The panels double as general room illumination when not using them for pictures. I’m not surprised that few photographers currently have any in a studio, though, as they simply weren’t around until recently, and once you have a complete strobe setup with gels, diffusers, etc, you already have an investment in a workflow that works for you. Of course, if you want to go out somewhere and work from battery power, but you realize you need extra light… LED is fairly efficient after all, and a flashlight is easy to carry along, if not a panel with batteries perhaps, although then you could also come up with flashtube based solutions that are similar.
“Otherwise, I see nothing in your post that really interests me, sorry.”
I am sorry, Oh Holy One. My Life is Yours and I Live For Your Interest.
… not. Yeah, if you’re not interested, just move along, buddy. And I think it’s safe to say you’re not interested in anything but arguing.
When I use it, I imagine that qualifies as “carrying” it, so yeah.
I’ve got smallish hands, and I won’t buy any light with a 3x or 4x 18650 config. I used to own one and just never liked the way it handled despite it being a really good light (Acebeam K60). The biggest I’ll go now is 26650.
spaceminions
Unlike some people who might fall into the trap of arguing pointlessly at the emotional level, I actually recognize that despite your tone, you typed all of that out just for little old me, maybe spending as long as 30-40 minutes of your Saturday night on that single post, so here’s your obligatory reply.
One of the outstanding features of this light is that it tail-stands like a brick . It screams lantern / room filling ceiling bounce light . That's one reason I like the BLF Q8 over the Sofirn .
The blf is normally parked and you understand what it is . If you want to pick it up and use it like a normal light the power/great U.I./nice tint / overcomes the fact it's fairly floody .
The Sofirn asks to be used like a regular flashlight which means it begins to show all the weaknesses you're implying ...also the reason Sofirn released the 3-18650 SP36.
I think It makes perfect sense to make a great heavier light and then to make a little lighter version with some upgrades /tint options etc .
Overall I think weight issues of Q8 lights are valid concerns and floody emitters make much more sense .
Children……. Grow up.
We ALL do the same thing in different ways.
NO MATTER what it it.
Agree to disagree and get on with it.
I was a Photographer in the old film and acid Tray days.
This modern Digital does nothing for me.
you can make anything look like anything
without taking it out of the camera. Almost.
Apart from the framing and subject. it’s all just electronics.
The satisfaction of getting “YESSSss” in a single shot exists no more.
I lost all my interest in photography when I no longer used 120/220 rollfilm and 4×5 inch sheet film. Taking the times to do and control everything manually was a big part of the fun. Controlling/correcting perspectives and/or depth of field/focal field with large format camera movements (tilt, shift, raise/fall) is not the same as correcting it digitally which introduce abberations by interpolation. Continuous lightning is much easier to work with when you have to control and correct the image from the camera before shooting.
I worked with pro-photographers and a few film-makers. A good amount of pro-photographers were sort of primadonnas, very proud of their materials and the brand(s) they choose : Nikon vs Canon, Hasselblad vs Rollei, Sinar vs Toyo.
I only used 2nd hand materials, “lego-ing” stuff and was looked down regularly by pro who liked to bragg about the price and technical superiority of their materials. For some people , if you are not using pro stuff, you are not a pro. 
I’m not surprised at all that they are still not using flashlights but can understand it easily. Pro lightning stuff use standards, insert for tripod, mount for filter/gelatine/accessories, etc, that are lacking most of the time on flashlights.
But I can’t agree more with you, we all do the same thing in different ways.
This is it. Big output and/or runtime. During a cold walk I can tap it out until the batteries drain. This is specifically why I bought it and it serves that purpose perfectly.
About five. More than it was worth if you were the only one to read it, but since it’s a forum, I imagine someone might happen along who’ll benefit or have a worthwhile response.
Heh, you’d best agree to disagree with those of us who have experienced the “YESSS” of getting a digital shot just right, or of taking a picture you could never have taken with film. (Say, using high iso on fast 35mm lenses without large grain.) I’d love to have lens adjustments, yes, but the capabilities of digital sensors are just astounding, and it’s both more satisfying and makes for a better quality of results not to cheat with editing, in a lot of cases. I can still get a small number of lenses which have basic tilt/shift capability. There’s more depth to digital when you try than you give it credit for, I think, because of all the people who don’t bother.
The problem with digital nowadays is that people let the camera do the thinking, auto-everything. Why bother with a DSLR, then? Use a friggin’ IPhone…
I like picking my own ISO, aperture, WB, other settings, EV, and just let the camera worry about the focus and exposure. Most of my shots are things-in-motion (bugs, birds, planes, etc.), so there’s no way I could fiddle with everything, because I’d just plain miss the shots by a mile.
And I’ve had those “YESSSSS…” moments, ’though typically hours afterwards when I review the shots. I even turned off the rear display on the camera because it just wasted battery-life and I never looked at it anyway.
For some reason, it kinda pisses me off when I see someone with a DSLR and they’re holding the camera out in front of them, looking at the rear display, rather than through the eyepiece. Dunno why.
There’s a variety of legitimate reasons to use the rear screen instead of the OVF even for stills, but I rarely do and it’s arguable whether the majority of people you’ve seen using it are using it for one of those reasons. I typically choose two legs of the triangle (f/stop, iso, shutter) and let the other one take up the slack, although my camera lacks the ability to use auto iso when I’ve set both other legs, so I have to either set only one leg or all of them in that case. I’ve never used the automatic mode, nor shot jpeg on my current camera, although I did right at first when I was a kid.
Hmm, can’t think of any reasons to use the screen vs VF.
I usually keep ISO400 as a good compromise of speed vs quality (graininess, chroma noise), unless I feel the need, the need for speed, in which case I’ll kick it up a few notches (and hopefully remember to notch it down afterward 
). The D7000 has the ability to set/use stoopit-high ISOs, but I rarely do.
I gotta use jpg vs raw, ’cause when I’m shooting rapidfire, the memcard just can’t keep up otherwise. Suits me fine, as I save ’em fullsize and highest quality anyway.
On a DSLR since the VF is optical, if you want to see what the camera sees (the result of your exposure settings) previewed, you need the screen. Or if you have one that folds out, you can hold the camera above or below your face to get a different perspective without lying down or standing on something. I’ll use the rear screen when there’s a magic lantern feature that only works in that mode, or for video, I suppose. I have a fast enough card to keep a sufficient rate to be worth shooting raw all the time, although I can’t do nearly the high speeds that you and the sports photographers would prefer. As for ISO, the last analog iso mode (IE the last one that I need ever use in raw) is 3200, and I have shot at that, even underexposed a stop or three when that’s all the light available, and then put a few minutes into smoothing the grain in the course of postprocessing.
Ah, yeah, concerts’n’stuff where you’re holding the camera over everyone’s head…
’Though I’ve laid on the ground to get a bug’s eye view of ’shrooms and small plants, and shooting up through backlit sea-grass and the like.
Anyhoo, I rarely if ever use the flash, either on-board or external. Indoors, I’ve bounced light off the ceiling to avoid reflections. A “pro” photographer I know did that (right-in-your-face flash) on a graduation shoot. So many hideous small reflections coming off every shiny convex surface on the mantle, on picture-frames, from eyeglasses, etc. :person_facepalming:
And flashtubes are hideously cold (almost 10,000K unless filtered), so even just using fill-flash, you can have a WW background and stark CW foreground.
That’s where those adjustable-cct light panels are so nice. You can tolerate anything within the range of the leds of the panel - which is great if you’re dealing with incandescent, halogen, and daylight, but can’t completely cope if you’ve got a particularly cool source. When you can’t get enough in panels alone, a high power flashlight or two can help you not need a flash. (And actually, given that I often chase low light performance in my budgeting for camera gear, I can get away with taking a portrait using far less light, but the point still stands.) I shot a prom once without using a flash or even a flashlight; was down to about 1/13 sec for some shots with f1.8 at iso 3200, but I made it work. That was because I had no budget though (was doing it as a favor and for practice) and didn’t want to distract everyone with a flash going off or shining lights around regardless.
I missed that train.