RIng Flashes...

[arkadiy_chernov]

<p>Wassup guys..</p>

<p>In the last days i got into my head to get a ring flash system to do face pix and macro, what's a good system to use for Pentax??? Any specialized stuff?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Pentax has a new P-TTL ring flash, <a href="http://nedbunnell.blogspot.com/2008/09/af160c-macro-flash-kit.html">the AF160C</a> . I'm not sure if it is available yet. I believe Sigma and Promaster also have P-TTL-capable ring flashes. I've never used one. I've had it in my head that before I try that I might want to try a bracket where I can mount a pair of hotshoe flashes (I have a pair of AF-360FGZ) like the Manfrotto 330B.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Sorry, I think that's actually AF160FC for P-TTL.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>You know something, one of the recent random photos of the day featured a bunch of close-up protraits (head and shoulders) lit by a ring light and I didn't like the reflections of the ring light that was present in the model's eyes. The rest of the lighting of the face was very nice, and shots where the model did not look into the lens were just as pleasing, but seeing that white ring in their eyes was a bit creepy. A few times the angle of the shot made the ring light reflection perfectly frame the pupil. I saw at least one comment at one of the photos where my sentiment was shared.</p>

<p>But I'd like to have one for macro tabletop photography. I was meandering the aisles of my local home improvement store last week and saw they were selling fluorescent magnifier ring lights (articulating arm style) for about $40. The bulb was marked at 6400K, 22 watt, and the inner diameter of the bulb was 6", the outer diameter of the bulb 8". It looks like the magnifing lens came out easily. I don't know how effective a 22 watt bulb would be. I turned on the display model and it didn't look very bright. I suppose I could buy it and try it, if it doesn't work, take it back. I read a macro photography book recently (don't recall the title, but it's the German to English translation) and this type of light fisture was a recommended idea to try vs. a real ring flash. Thoughts?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Ring flashes for people and macro are quite different. A good ringflash for people needs a large head. Big enough so that there's enough angle between the ring and the lens to have the ring "aura" of shadow, a ring catchlight in the eyes, and a bit of depth and modelling to the lines of the face. The ring has to be evenly lit all the way around. And it needs power, like f11, ISO 100 at 6-10 feet power. A modeling light, so you can see the light before you shoot is also good. "People" rings range from $300 (alien bees) to about $3000 (Hensel, Profoto).</p>

<p>A ring for macro looks its worst if the ring is totally evenly lit. Ideally, you should be able to control the brightness of at least 2 sections of the ring separately. Some rings are two controllable semi-circles, and those look pretty good. Others have multilpe small heads that slide around the ring. (Nikon went off the deep end, you can place up to 8 independent heads on their ring).</p>

<p>I don't have any macro ring shots handy, but here's one with an Alien Bees ring, about 9 inch, line powered, around 6 feet (maybe a little less) from a beautiful friend. Note that we still have an outline around the nose, cords in the neck, collar bones, and the size of the ring makes the light brightest on surfaces in the camera plane and as the surface turns away (sides of the face, edges of the arms) you get some shading. It's not completly flat, the way it would be with a 3-4 inch "macro" ring.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>The bulb was marked at 6400K, 22 watt, and the inner diameter of the bulb was 6", the outer diameter of the bulb 8".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are two factors in fluorescent lights. One is color temperature, the other is something called CRI (color rendition index). CRI ranges from 0 (monochromatic light like Sodium) to 100 (sunlight at 5500K or incandescent lights at 2900K). It's a measure of the "completeness" and "smoothness" of the spectrum of the light. A 6400K bulb with a CRI of 65 may let you set white balance to 6400K and get good looking whites, but reds may come out anemic orange, while greens go decidedly cyan. It's near unusable for good plant or animal shots.</p>

<p>You can get straight 4 foot tubes with high CRI (from 85 all the way to a near perfect 98 thay's fine for demanding portraiture or product shots) but the circular tubes in magnifier desk lights ar essentially useless 55-65.</p>

<p>If you want perfectly flat lighting for table top macro, learn how to use a simple piece of glass, angled at 45 degrees to the subject, to set up "coaxial" lighting with the "speedlight" type flash you already have. Cost? About zero. Just ask for some 6 inch glass scraps at your local framing shop.</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Joseph, I know this is wandering off-topic from ring flashes but I'm wondering about your glass idea; I don't have a good picture in my mind what you're describing. Are you shooting direct flash but holding a piece of angled glass as a go-between? Or is this as a reflector?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>How's this?</p><div></div>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>What happened to ringlight girl?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Frustrating...</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>OK, here we go again.</p>

<p>Here's one with an Alien Bees ring, about 9 inch, line powered, around 6 feet (maybe a little less) from a beautiful friend. Note that we still have an outline around the nose, cords in the neck, collar bones, and the size of the ring makes the light brightest on surfaces in the camera plane and as the surface turns away (sides of the face, edges of the arms) you get some shading. It's not completly flat, the way it would be with a 3-4 inch "macro" ring.</p><div></div>

[stemked]

<p>With my film setup I still have the 080 AF, its a nice setup, a tad heavy though. I recently picked up a Phinex LED system that will work with ANY system. It isn't a flash system, its a series of LED lights that you turn on. It seemed to work well, is very lightweight, but it is not an especially strong light. Since the light is always on if you are working macro subjects at night you can actually see your critters without haveing to bring another flashlight along. One thing I don't like about the system is you have to recharge it; there are no batteries (also explains why it is so light). So if you are in the field and are out of juice you are out of luck, you can't just plop in a fresh battery.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>White LEDs are another low CRI light source that can make accurate color difficult.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>In this one, the size of the ring was increased to a whopping 30 inches by using an Alien Bees "moon unit" ring reflector on the ringlight. Even at 12-15 feet from the subject, we still see "aura shadows" and now we've got a lot more depth to the image. Oiling the subject doesn't hurt, either...</p>

<p>A smaller ring would have made the hot spots on the oiled body smaller and brighter, probably blowing them out. And it wouldn't have shown the spine and back muscles with as much contrast.</p><div></div>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Again, the large ring gives us texture and contrast one would not expect in a ring light shot. Look at the collar bones, or the muscles on the arms. Look at the way the halo shadow of the hands on her stomach sets the hands apart. Yet we still retain a ringlight's ability to light metal with little glare.</p>

<p>Pretty "3D" isn't it? Weren't ringlights supposed to be "flat" lghting?</p>

[musings]

<p>I didn't realize that ring flashes would stir up this level of interest (it might have to do with Joseph's model, though... ;->). I own a cheap Phoenix manual ring flash but I stopped using it. I feel that they're good for some macro work, but I don't like the catchlight in portraits...but then again, that is simply a personal preference.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Yes, those cornea catchlights are 'something else'. My first thought was they could be digitally removed but I guess you want some sort of catchlight so not sure what the best approach would be. Perhaps if subject was a little further from the background the 'aura shadow' would be eliminated if that's what you want.</p>

<p>Is there a proper 'term' for this coaxial glass technique? How much power do you lose--will shutter speed likely remain high or does it rob so much light that it is only appropriate to use with static subjects? Would you want to use it on people or just 'tabletop macro'? Is there a particular kind of glass one would want to use or avoid?</p>

[b_bagley]

<p>You guys are hard core! No way I can take my eyes off that beautiful woman long enogh to discuss lighting techniques. I guess you grow accustomed to these photos but WHOA NELLIE! She's a looker!</p>

[ken_yee]

<p>Wow...I still want a real ringflash...why do these things have to cost $300-400? :-P</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Admittedly it's still way expensive but for $200 there are these <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=555767&is=REG&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews">ExpoImaging "Ray Flash"</a> ring flash adapters that appear to couple a regular hotshoe flash and redirect its illumination to a ring. I see them available in a few sizes for various combinations of Canon/Nikon body/flash combinations. Conceivably one of these sizes may work with a Pentax body/flash? No idea just how well they work. Reviews on B&H seem a bit mixed.</p>

[arkadiy_chernov]

<p>Wow....nice hard core topic guys. I did not know how a simple question like that would develop such a long discussion lolol! Thanks for the feedback though</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>I don't have any friends like Joe's.</p>

<p>Anyway, anyone out there brave enough to set down the camera and do a little home engineering? Check out these links on making a homemade ring flash. Don't poo-poo it until you give it some thought. The possibilities could be endless. Think different colored foils.</p>

<p>

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/11/ring-flash-week-intro-and-resources.html<br>

http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00HCVK</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a proper 'term' for this coaxial glass technique?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a good question. When the beam splitter is between the lens and the camera (common in microscopes) it's referred to as epi-illumination. So that's how I usually refer to glass between the subject and the lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How much power do you lose--</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ordinary glass at 45 degrees reflects about 12% of light. So you lose 3 stops (3.06 if you want to get picky) from light to camera. From the sunbect to the camera, 12% is reflected away, 88% makes it through to the camera, so another 0.18 stops. 3.24 stops all totaled.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>will shutter speed likely remain high or does it rob so much light that it is only appropriate to use with static subjects?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're using hot lights' you're probably talking static subjects. With flash, at macro distances you can typically stand to lose that much. ISO 100 GN 130 130 ft drops to GN 42, which means you can still shoot f16 at 2.6 feet. At ISO 200 and f11, you can shoot 5 feet, which covers a lot of situations. f8 and ISO 400 you're good to go at 10 foot portrait distances, with about as flat lighting as it's possible to get.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would you want to use it on people or just 'tabletop macro'?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, I'd consider that kind of light way to flat for people. They'd look almost like cardboard cutouts. I like the 9 inch ring up to 6 feet, the bigger 22 or 30 inch at 12 feet or if I want more depth to the subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a particular kind of glass one would want to use or avoid?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the air is relatively stationary, the very best stuff to use is 50% reflective mylar film, stretched tight in a frame. (I got mine at Edmund Optics). Using film totally eliminates any chance of ghosting between the two surfaces of an ordinary piece of glass. And there's no distortion shooting through it, even if it moves with air. The only thing that happens when it moves is the light can move over the subject.</p>

<p>Aside from that, I get scraps of single thickness picture frame glass. You want the decolorized stuff (looks lighy blue from the edge, instead of dark green). Not anti-glare, that's either frosted or has an anti-reflection coating, and for this, we want reflections. Aside from being decolorized, picture frame glass is typicallt flatter than window glass, making for sharper, less distorted pictures.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have any friends like Joe's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's weird. I don't really try, it's just how things worked out. One day, I sat down and counted up my close friends. It comes out something like 3 males (2 slightly older than me) and 9 females (ranging from 8-25 years younger than me). 6 of the women are "model pretty" and pose for me on occasion. My coworkers make jokes about my "harem".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway, anyone out there brave enough to set down the camera and do a little home engineering? Check out these links on making a homemade ring flash. Don't poo-poo it until you give it some thought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would never ridacule something like that. I've built two speedlight powered ring flashes. One with three flashes firing inward into a bundt pan (surprisingly awkward) and one with a ring and four hotshoe extension cables that holds four flashes pointed forward (small reflector) or outward (for the large reflector). That ring is 18 inches of 1 x 1/4 inch extruded aluminum. Two strips of the same Al with a bunch of pop rivets makes a 1 x 1/2 inch bar 6 inches long to connect the ring to the camera bottom. Hoops of 1/2 x 1/16 make the frames for the reflectors, which are silver cloth with a black rip-stop backing to make a nice dark outward shell, and white rip-stop for a front fiffuser. Lots of Velcro holds it together.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I didn't read the whole thread, but caught that ingenious bit about the glass, above. Also, although I am a proud ringflash owner, I don't have any chain-mail-bikini photos to offer in comparison.</p>

<p>I know this means I automatically lose.</p>

<p>I have an ABR800. It's a powerful flash. If you have an ABR800 with accessories, basically, you have it all. The ringflashes can be used like other flashes. Really, for the more powerful ones like the ABR800, it does a fair bit of its time on the light stand. Really, the only anomaly I have noticed in using ringflash is that I think they would work best with autofocus lenses. I use two-touch manual zooms and all manual lenses; sometimes it's a little tight between the barrel and ring flash. Because of the depth of the ringflash (something I didn't even think to think about when I was getting one; how thick is that ringflash?), it can be very inefficient to use some manual lenses with the camera mounted in the flash assembly. Sometimes it's just tough to get your fingers in there because there is not enough clearance allowed to get your hands in there, too.</p>

<p>The things I would look for in a ring flash would be some of the same features I would look for in other strobes. Get adjustable power. If I had to choose between higher output and adjustable power, I'd pick adjustable power.</p>

<p>Essential for macro? I doubt it. I use bellows and macro lenses with my medium format rig, and adapted them to fit the small format; never had to have a light right there at the edge of the lens. Never.</p>

<p>A strobe unit that close to the edge of the lens, that close to the subject to do macro; it would have to be an extremely weak light source because of the distances involved.</p>

<p>You would have to take a macro picture of a black hole to justify having your strobe that close. Hey, unnecessary. Don't do it. You want even lighting, not close lighting. Back up and plan the fall of the light.</p>

<p>I don't think there would be a lot of cases where it would be to anyone's advantage to have a light that is that close just because you are shooting macro. I find that my light setups are smaller in macro; about the same surface area as a dining table tabletop; but, they do not have to be inches away from the subject. I don't know why people think that; but I believe that it is totally unnecessary and probably infrequently used.</p>

<p>The ABR800 I use is fairly powerful. I have taken pictures of houses in total darkness from about 50' away, and had enough power to illuminate the area well. Not just, The Light Got There, but <em>illuminated the area well</em>. It is clearly my most powerful and versatile flash.</p>

<p>Many people seem to not like ringflashes. I think they're great. I enjoy mine. I will tell you, though, that the ringflash is a ringfilash. I mean, I saw a wildlife photographer on TV today who was running around with an on-camera flash. However, it's off camera light plans that are really going to make a photo excel. I use my ringflash and enjoy it. I do think they are underrated; I would also invest in lighting education and planning more.</p>

<p>I really like my ringflash. I would recommend them. However, once I got into using it, I found that it helped me in its own way. The bad stuff I read about them was overstated. The point about "shadowless" lighting was overrated. The ringflash in and of itself, was a good investment. With adjustable power, and also a lightstand mount so that you can also use it as a regular strobe? Invaluable.</p>