Critique Macro setup and pictures - advice

[Xerse]

Hey guys and girls, I was advised by alfbranch to post my macro set ups and some sample pictures for some advice on what i could be doing a bit better. Feel free to be as harsh as you like, as long it's helpful

First up is a Canon 600D with some cheap extension tubes (28mm) with a Canon 50mm 1.8 II, (The ringflash is only used at night) As the extension tubes are non-contact, i set the lens to f/8 and leave it there.

Macro set 1 by K Stanley, on Flickr

And here are some pictures taken yesterday with this set up.

IMG_7540 by K Stanley, on Flickr

The next is taken with the same set up, but with 28mm+14mm+7mm extension tubes, however because I didn't change the aperture due to the non-contact extension tubes, i had to shoot at ISO6400.

IMG_7596-1 by K Stanley, on Flickr

This next setup i use is the same body, Canon 600D with a Tamron 70-300mm, with a Raynox 250 on the end, i mostly shoot this at f/22, sometimes smaller.

Macro set 2 by K Stanley, on Flickr

And here are some pictures taken with it, all done on the same day as the other.

IMG_7666-1 by K Stanley, on Flickr

IMG_7684 by K Stanley, on Flickr

IMG_7693 by K Stanley, on Flickr

PP done is all done on a screen without calibration, hopefully they're not too far off. Most of the time i have to do PP 3-4 times on each shot, which is a MASSIVE pain. :banghead:

Let me know what you guys think and how i could improve. It will really help, i'm keen to advance my skills in macro, as it's my real passion in photography.

Thanks in advance

Kev

 

[GardenersHelper]

Good to see the equipment setup and info, and some examples. That is very helpful.

I have some comments and questions.

I've been looking at the specs and some reviews of the MeiKe fc100. Are you using it in continuous light mode or flash mode?

Am I right in thinking that in flash mode you can't adjust the output level (the only adjustment being to use the left half, the right half or both)? With the flash duration being quoted as 1/100 sec, that would mean that you lose light as you go faster than 1/100 sec. You used 1/160 sec for the first two examples (I'm assuming it was flash not continuous), so dropping back to 1/100 sec might help a bit with the ISO.

1/100 may be rather slow as magnification increases, assuming you are working hand-held, so the MeiKe may be a bit limiting with its fixed and rather slow flash duration.

You say "Most of the time i have to do PP 3-4 times on each shot". Could you tell us a bit more about this please?

I have played with these but it is a bit difficult to comment on them because I'm not sure if what I'm seeing is the result of what exactly was captured versus what you have done in post processing. If you are shooting JPEG could you post out of camera versions, or better yet if shooting raw could you put raw files up somewhere like Dropbox?

The light from the flash looks quite cold, as noted in some of the reviews, but your post processing might be influencing this of course. Either way, you might want to move the white balance Temp a bit towards yellow.

I see you used flash with the 70-300 + Raynox shots. Was this the camera flash?

Are you diffusing the flash in any way? You might want to look at https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-your-macro-rig.132158/ to get some ideas about using flash and diffusion.

I see you are using f/8 with the 50mm but f/22 or more with the 70-300 + Raynox. What is the thinking here as to the difference?

What is the thinking behind only using the ring flash at night?

 

[alfbranch]

Kev
You are managing to get the subject in focus which is a great start point. They are not shot from above and you are getting decent angles you need to sort lighting and exposure IMO.

Auto extension tubes need not cost the earth http://srb-photographic.co.uk/canon-eos-auto-extension-tube-set-7048-p.asp

Do you have an ordinary none ring flash?
If you do try an ordinary flash with a home made diffuser it really helps.

More and more it has dawned on me that lighting is the key to good macro shots I suppose I have known it is important for a long time. If you go to the people and portrait section you find talk about lighting being key and it is for macro too.

I use flash all the time even on bright sunny days as it gives better detail. as when I have time I intend to do some comparison shots but the there will be out there already.

 

[Deleted member 3428]

As Alf says light is everything when it comes to getting the quality in your shots. I have never used led lighting before but I would imagine its flash duration is pretty slow, using the onboard flash diffused and somehow getting the light to the front of the lens would improve your image quality or using an ordinary single flash. Checkout the show us your gear thread in this forum for ideas. You have the eye for a good shot which can be seen in this set.

 

[Xerse]

Good to see the equipment setup and info, and some examples. That is very helpful.

I have some comments and questions.

I've been looking at the specs and some reviews of the MeiKe fc100. Are you using it in continuous light mode or flash mode?

Am I right in thinking that in flash mode you can't adjust the output level (the only adjustment being to use the left half, the right half or both)? With the flash duration being quoted as 1/100 sec, that would mean that you lose light as you go faster than 1/100 sec. You used 1/160 sec for the first two examples (I'm assuming it was flash not continuous), so dropping back to 1/100 sec might help a bit with the ISO.

1/100 may be rather slow as magnification increases, assuming you are working hand-held, so the MeiKe may be a bit limiting with its fixed and rather slow flash duration.

You say "Most of the time i have to do PP 3-4 times on each shot". Could you tell us a bit more about this please?

I have played with these but it is a bit difficult to comment on them because I'm not sure if what I'm seeing is the result of what exactly was captured versus what you have done in post processing. If you are shooting JPEG could you post out of camera versions, or better yet if shooting raw could you put raw files up somewhere like Dropbox?

The light from the flash looks quite cold, as noted in some of the reviews, but your post processing might be influencing this of course. Either way, you might want to move the white balance Temp a bit towards yellow.

I see you used flash with the 70-300 + Raynox shots. Was this the camera flash?

Are you diffusing the flash in any way? You might want to look at https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-your-macro-rig.132158/ to get some ideas about using flash and diffusion.

I see you are using f/8 with the 50mm but f/22 or more with the 70-300 + Raynox. What is the thinking here as to the difference?

What is the thinking behind only using the ring flash at night?

Hey, thanks for the great reply, good questions and information.

The ring flash I have I always use it in continuous light mode, however you can change the output level on flash mode, as well as the left/right as you said. The reason i shoot in continuous light mode is the 1/100 hold back. I have a very strange way of doing things with lighting, depending which set up i'm using. I don't actually mount the flash on the hotshoe, which means i can use the onboard flash (i have no other flash units) which helps in really low light situations. The reason i only use the ringflash at night is because i didn't really think i would benefit from using a continuous light source in the daylight.

shot #1 was with onboard flash, and natural light (no ring flash on continuous)
shot #2 was without anything other than natural light, i couldn't use onboard flash because of the length of putting on extra extension tubes, the light didn't reach the subject.
shot #3, 4 and 5 were all shot with onboard flash and no ringflash.

My reasoning behind the f/8 on the 50mm and f/22 on the 70-300, is purely based on trial and error. Obviously extension tubes make the world a dark place, and with my poor light options i settled at f/8, do you think i could do with closing the lens up some more?

There is no diffusion on any flash, mainly because i'm only using onboard, and the methods i've seen for diffusing onboard flash and extending it to reach the subject seem rather time invasive methods, using a whole lotta duct tape, and since this is my only camera body, it doesn't really seem that beneficial, or is it?

I have done as you suggested and popped the RAW files on dropbox, which the link will be below. I hope you have fun with them

The reason i usually PP my shots 3-4 times is because of my poor monitor, causing everything to be a faff!

I think i've covered all points you mentioned, nice and long post for you to read through now

Thank you again!

Kev
You are managing to get the subject in focus which is a great start point. They are not shot from above and you are getting decent angles you need to sort lighting and exposure IMO.

Auto extension tubes need not cost the earth http://srb-photographic.co.uk/canon-eos-auto-extension-tube-set-7048-p.asp

Do you have an ordinary none ring flash?
If you do try an ordinary flash with a home made diffuser it really helps.

More and more it has dawned on me that lighting is the key to good macro shots I suppose I have known it is important for a long time. If you go to the people and portrait section you find talk about lighting being key and it is for macro too.

I use flash all the time even on bright sunny days as it gives better detail. as when I have time I intend to do some comparison shots but the there will be out there already.

Thanks for your post Alf, I do agree with your comment about needing to sort light and exposure out - i'm just not sure how to go about it.
I do plan on getting some auto extension tubes, infact, they're in my amazon basket, only a cheap set, but the reviews seem good. It would be a massive help, the only reason I don't have any right now is because i bought the cheap manual ones just to see if i liked extension tubes, then when i decided i did, i didn't have the money to buy any auto ones.

I also don't have anything else other than the ringflash and the onboard flash, again, I've been wanting an ordinary flash, however it's the money side of things again.
I just lost my job a month and a bit ago, which isn't ideal , considering i was just finally getting back on my feet and bought my first car! Now i have to use my leftover money to sort other priorities out unfortunately.

I will look around for some comparison shots with and without flash

As Alf says light is everything when it comes to getting the quality in your shots. I have never used led lighting before but I would imagine its flash duration is pretty slow, using the onboard flash diffused and somehow getting the light to the front of the lens would improve your image quality or using an ordinary single flash. Checkout the show us your gear thread in this forum for ideas. You have the eye for a good shot which can be seen in this set.

Thanks alby, I will definitely have a look at some way to extend and diffuse the onboard flash, it's just a tricky one i think!
I appreciate your comment, thank you very much.

 

[GardenersHelper]

The ring flash I have I always use it in continuous light mode ...The reason i shoot in continuous light mode is the 1/100 hold back.

OK, understood.

I have a very strange way of doing things with lighting, depending which set up i'm using. I don't actually mount the flash on the hotshoe, which means i can use the onboard flash (i have no other flash units) which helps in really low light situations.

OK. That makes sense.

The reason i only use the ringflash at night is because i didn't really think i would benefit from using a continuous light source in the daylight.

Adding illumination to a daylight scene can help, for a couple of reasons.

If the daylight is bright (in direct sun) then the lighting can look very harsh, with very deep (even featureless black) shadows, for example on the underside of the subject. Adding light ("fill") to the scene can smooth out the illumination, making it less harsh and providing visibility in the shadows.

Daylight often isn't very bright, especially if you are photographing in the shade. Depending on what aperture you use (see below), you may need some extra illumination to get a fast enough shutter speed.

shot #1 was with onboard flash, and natural light (no ring flash on continuous)
shot #2 was without anything other than natural light, i couldn't use onboard flash because of the length of putting on extra extension tubes, the light didn't reach the subject.
shot #3, 4 and 5 were all shot with onboard flash and no ringflash.

Ah, ok, so we've got no examples using the ring flash, either as flash or continuous.

My reasoning behind the f/8 on the 50mm and f/22 on the 70-300, is purely based on trial and error. Obviously extension tubes make the world a dark place, and with my poor light options i settled at f/8, do you think i could do with closing the lens up some more?

Quick answer. Maybe, but probably not much. It depends on the magnification. You might want to skip what follows and just experiment to see what works for you.

Long answer.

This gets a bit complicated I'm afraid. It depends whether you are using the Raynox or the extension tubes. Let's deal with the extension tubes first. The situation with the Raynox is much simpler and easy to explain.

If you are using extension tubes then the aperture you are using is smaller than the aperture you set on the camera. How much smaller it is depends on how much magnification you are using.

Let's call the aperture you set on the camera the "nominal" aperture. Let's call the aperture you are actually using the "effective" aperture. They are related by this formula.

Effective aperture = Nominal aperture * ( 1 + magnification )

For example, if the magnification is 1:1 (also known as 1x), the image on the sensor is the same size as the scene. If you have 1:1 magnification with your 600D then the width of the scene is 22.5mm, because that is the width of the sensor in your camera. In this case, if you set the aperture on the camera to f/8 (so that is the Nominal aperture), then

the Effective aperture = 8 * ( 1 + 1), which is f/16.

As the magnification increases, the effective aperture gets smaller, and because of this the viewfinder gets darker. As the aperture gets smaller the depth of field gets larger, which is good for close-ups/macros. However, as the aperture gets smaller the sharpness and detail of the image gets degraded because of diffraction. So you need to choose an effective aperture that gives a good (to your eye) balance between increasing depth of field and decreasing sharpness/detail.

So, exactly what aperture you are using (the effective aperture) depends on how much magnification you are using. You can tell how much magnification you are using with your extension tubes by taking pictures of the mm scale on a ruler. If the image is 22.5mm wide it is 1:1, or 1x magnification. If the image is 45mm wide it is 1:2, or 0.5x magnification. If the image is 11mm wide it is 2:1, or 2x magnification. Etc.

If you take a ruler picture with your 50mm lens with each combination of extension tubes (7, 14, 7+14, 28, 28+7, 28+14, 28+14+7), you will be able to work out what magnification you are getting for each of the six options. From that you can work out for any of the six combinations what the effective aperture is for any aperture that you set on the camera.

Opinions differ as to what a good effective aperture is, and it also depends on the scene and the subject matter. You'll need to experiment and find out what works for you, but as a starting point I suggest not using an effective aperture of less than f/32. What that means in terms of the aperture you set on the camera when you are using extension tubes is something you would need to work out in the way I've described above. I wouldn't be surprised if using all three extension tubes on the 50mm lens gives you a magnification of a bit more than 1:1, in which case f/11 or so would probably be the smallest sensible aperture.

The situation with the Raynox on the 70-300 is very straightforward. The aperture you set is the aperture you get. The Raynox doesn't change the aperture. It doesn't matter what the magnification is. And this is why the viewfinder doesn't get darker when you use the Raynox. f/22 is fine IMO (and even f/32 if you are at the long end of the 70-300), but many people won't use an aperture that small. As with the extension tubes, you are the only person who can decide what looks ok to you.

FWIW here is an f/32 image using a Raynox (not sure if it was the 150 or 250) on my 55-250 on my 70D (natural light, tripod).


0505 4b Myopa 2014_04_09 IMG_3551-Edit PS1 PSS3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There is no diffusion on any flash, mainly because i'm only using onboard, and the methods i've seen for diffusing onboard flash and extending it to reach the subject seem rather time invasive methods, using a whole lotta duct tape, and since this is my only camera body, it doesn't really seem that beneficial, or is it?

Very definitely. Have a look at this page from Mark Berkery. Search for "Velcro" on that page, and you'll see the way he diffuses his on board flash. Scene illumination makes an absolutely huge difference for close-ups/macros (IMO).

I have done as you suggested and popped the RAW files on dropbox, which the link will be below. I hope you have fun with them

I don't see a link yet unfortunately.

The reason i usually PP my shots 3-4 times is because of my poor monitor, causing everything to be a faff!

You might want to look at these test pages and see if you can adjust the brightness and contrast of your screen to see if you can improve what you see of the test pages.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gamma_calibration.php

 

[Xerse]

Adding illumination to a daylight scene can help, for a couple of reasons.

If the daylight is bright (in direct sun) then the lighting can look very harsh, with very deep (even featureless black) shadows, for example on the underside of the subject...Depending on what aperture you use (see below), you may need some extra illumination to get a fast enough shutter speed.

Ahh, I see. You might be able to understand where I was thinking wrong, then. I assumed that with direct sun, obviously you can tell it's a harsh light on the subject, so I had always figured adding more light would make things worse. I can see what you mean now in regards to adding light to fill the scene, which would somewhat even things out, is that right?

Oh, i had also forgot to mention, I shoot hand held.

Ah, ok, so we've got no examples using the ring flash, either as flash or continuous.

Here's an image from my flickr with ring flash on continuous and onboard flash firing. This is from june 2013 at I'd guess around 3am in the woods, so as you can imagine it was pitch black other than my light.

Woodlouse by K Stanley, on Flickr

Quick answer. Maybe, but probably not much. It depends on the magnification...FWIW here is an f/32 image using a Raynox (not sure if it was the 150 or 250) on my 55-250 on my 70D (natural light, tripod).

Okay, that makes sense. I will have to try the different combinations of extension tubes with a ruler and work out what magnification i'm getting. I am hoping (fingers crossed) to get some auto extension tubes as soon as next week, which will help with experimentation at least, much easier to change aperture!

I was about to ask how that photo was taken, considering it's so light at f/32 and no flash, but after looking at flickr the shutter speed and ISO means i don't have to ask a stupid question! haha. I find using a tripod for macro a lot more difficult. I've gave it a try before, but It's just not something i seem to be able to do. By the time I've got the tripod in the position i want and the camera focused, whatever i'm trying to shoot has either crawled away, flew away or died from old age.

Very definitely. Have a look at this page from Mark Berkery. Search for "Velcro" on that page, and you'll see the way he diffuses his on board flash. Scene illumination makes an absolutely huge difference for close-ups/macros (IMO).

I've just checked out that link, I believe i've visited that page before, I remember a lot of the shots and the diffuser. It was quite some time ago, though. I think i will definitely be trying his method of onboard flash diffusing, seems simple and effective, and not taping my camera up with 20 rolls of duct tape

I don't see a link yet unfortunately.

Oops. Here it is, my apologies. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zyc7owredql531s/AACWu1qG4oUfPdi1pNtlKR2na?dl=0

You might want to look at these test pages and see if you can adjust the brightness and contrast of your screen to see if you can improve what you see of the test pages.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gamma_calibration.php

I'll give these a go, using windows own colour calibration tool seems to not make much of a difference (i do most of my PP on my laptop) Hopefully these links will help

I want to thank you again Nick for taking so much time out of your night to read, reply and advise me on all of this. Top bloke!

 

[alfbranch]

Bummer about the job mate I hope it works out for you soon.
Not many of use a tripod but as I read recently they can be used to hold the subject

 

[Xerse]

Bummer about the job mate I hope it works out for you soon.
Not many of use a tripod but as I read recently they can be used to hold the subject

Cheers Alf, I'm sure i'll be back on my feet in no time. Just one of those things! Companies downsize and get rid of their newest staff. I'm sure we've all been there, luckily i'm still a young bean and don't mind what work I do!

What do you mean by "hold the subject"? I'd be interested to hear more.

 

[alfbranch]

Cheers Alf, I'm sure i'll be back on my feet in no time. Just one of those things! Companies downsize and get rid of their newest staff. I'm sure we've all been there, luckily i'm still a young bean and don't mind what work I do!

What do you mean by "hold the subject"? I'd be interested to hear more.

I suppose like this

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0HGBJJ20Fs

Oh and look at this

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oq5R8NYGVM

 

[Deleted member 3428]

At 2.02 into that movie Alf it shows the front of his mp-e with what looks a silver pie dish fitted to the front of the lens, interesting. I would imagine to reflect light into the lens. Anyone tried this?

 

[GardenersHelper]

Ahh, I see. You might be able to understand where I was thinking wrong, then. I assumed that with direct sun, obviously you can tell it's a harsh light on the subject, so I had always figured adding more light would make things worse. I can see what you mean now in regards to adding light to fill the scene, which would somewhat even things out, is that right?

That's right, and it isn't obvious that adding light to a very bright scene would improve matters!

Here is an extreme example. This spider was in very deep shadow beneath the leaf. Without flash I had two possibilities - turn up the exposure so you could see the spider ok - but then you'd have big areas on top of the leaf and in the background blown completely to white. Or turn the exposure down so the background would be ok - but then you wouldn't be able to see the spider. I could pull up the shadows in the dark version, or pull down the highlights in the bright version. I often do one or other of these, or both, but there is a limit to how far you can get with that. Evening up the light with flash worked well in this case.


0440 080 2012_07_25 P1530482 PS1 ShadPSS1 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There is a third option in theory, to use HDR, and capture at least a couple of shots, one exposed for the bright areas and one for the dark areas, and then combine them. However, I don't think that would have worked in this case because the spider was moving, from the top leaf to the bottom one.

Here's an image from my flickr with ring flash on continuous and onboard flash firing. This is from june 2013 at I'd guess around 3am in the woods, so as you can imagine it was pitch black other than my light.

Woodlouse by K Stanley, on Flickr

Looks like that worked ok.

Okay, that makes sense. I will have to try the different combinations of extension tubes with a ruler and work out what magnification i'm getting. I am hoping (fingers crossed) to get some auto extension tubes as soon as next week, which will help with experimentation at least, much easier to change aperture!

Happy experimenting!

I was about to ask how that photo was taken, considering it's so light at f/32 and no flash, but after looking at flickr the shutter speed and ISO means i don't have to ask a stupid question! haha. I find using a tripod for macro a lot more difficult. I've gave it a try before, but It's just not something i seem to be able to do. By the time I've got the tripod in the position i want and the camera focused, whatever i'm trying to shoot has either crawled away, flew away or died from old age.

I used to shoot mainly natural light and I used a tripod a lot. It needs very still air to be able to use a tripod in the "normal" way - setting up a shot and then using the timer or a remote release to give the camera time to settle down. Instead of doing that I mainly kept my hands on the camera. The tripod damped down my hand movement and let me use slower shutter speeds than I could hand-held, but by pushing and pulling the tripod I still had some flexibility for framing shots and following slowly moving insects etc. Using a tripod also helped with framing shots at higher magnification (this is true even if using flash).

Now though I mainly use flash for insects, spiders etc, and have found that I can frame shots ok hand-held (it's a bit hit and miss, but like you say setting up a tripod takes time and can lose you shots too), and I have taken to working hand-held with flowers, so I haven't used a tripod for months.

One thing I would still use a tripod for is very slow natural light shots like the one I posted above. These are typically early morning (in the hour or so after dawn, when it's easier to find insects sitting around), but I haven't done a dawn session for ages.

I've just checked out that link, I believe i've visited that page before, I remember a lot of the shots and the diffuser. It was quite some time ago, though. I think i will definitely be trying his method of onboard flash diffusing, seems simple and effective, and not taping my camera up with 20 rolls of duct tape

Simple (and small and light) is good - if you can sort out a suitable arrangement that works well for you. I have tried some monstrously complicated and heavy ones in the past. Fortunately none of those gave the best results and I use a not too heavy setup these days.

Oops. Here it is, my apologies. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zyc7owredql531s/AACWu1qG4oUfPdi1pNtlKR2na?dl=0

Thanks. I've had a play. Nothing hugely significant to comment on I don't think. When I compared my edits to yours what I saw seemed to be mainly a question of taste - I go for lower contrast than many people, and I'm sure many would prefer your edits to mine. In fact, for the spider and the thing with long antennae I preferred yours too - and to be honest there wasn't a huge amount of difference with the others, so I won't bother posting any of my edits.

I'll give these a go, using windows own colour calibration tool seems to not make much of a difference (i do most of my PP on my laptop) Hopefully these links will help

I never got anywhere with Windows calibration.

Using manual adjustments with those charts can be a really tedious bore, so you may have to be patient - and maybe write down any of the settings you change, before you change them, so if you get in a pickle (I did, more than once, before moving to a hardware calibrator) you can at least get back to where you are now. If you can get your setup closer to how those charts suggest, then you may find the display looks a bit dim to begin with, but your eyes will very quickly adjust.

I want to thank you again Nick for taking so much time out of your night to read, reply and advise me on all of this. Top bloke!

Thanks. It's a pleasure.

 

[TimmyG]

At 2.02 into that movie Alf it shows the front of his mp-e with what looks a silver pie dish fitted to the front of the lens, interesting. I would imagine to reflect light into the lens. Anyone tried this?

It's a 56-26mm step down ring. See here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/15744475133/in/dateposted/

I use the same thing to attach the arm on my front-mounting flash bracket. I just haven't got round to spraying it chrome yet Basically it will reflect some light from the flash onto the subject (I've used something similar made from white foam in the past), but it can leave you with strange looking highlights (particularly in jumping spider's eyes).

 

[Deleted member 3428]

I think it is more of a foil cake /pie dish attached Tim in the video as it is a concave shape. I was wondering just what you might gain from such an addition.

 

[TimmyG]

I think it is more of a foil cake /pie dish attached Tim in the video as it is a concave shape. I was wondering just what you might gain from such an addition.

Oh sorry, I was looking at the wrong video. In the first video it looks like he's just taped or stuck foil around the front of the lens. I guess it's for the same reasons though, to attempt to reflect light back around the subject.

 

[alfbranch]

I think it is more of a foil cake /pie dish attached Tim in the video as it is a concave shape. I was wondering just what you might gain from such an addition.

Oh sorry, I was looking at the wrong video. In the first video it looks like he's just taped or stuck foil around the front of the lens. I guess it's for the same reasons though, to attempt to reflect light back around the subject.

In the conditions he is working in that video I am not sure why it would help as the light is very nice and he can choose his angle of shooting too.
It is just visible for a fraction of a second on the other video when he shows his gear at the begiining so I geuss it is for flash work.