Hi folks, I'm new here. Can anyone please give me some basic tips on ring flashes for macro - especially about the key differences between LED ring flashes and the more conventional 'flash tube' ring flashes'? In particular, many of the web sites describing particular ring flashes don't seem to give a guide number. I suspect that LED ring flashes will have comparatively low guide numbers - but I don't know for sure. Many thanks, G0LOJ.
Ring flashes for macro
- Thread starter G0LOJ
- Start date
- Messages
- 15,379
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
ive had a couple of the cheap Chinese ones and tbh there not worth the money .if that's what your looking at .they work on camera and do what there supposed to but that doesn't translate to the photos taken i.e not enough power
- Messages
- 9,777
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Godox ones are pretty good. I've also got a Yongnuo (I think?) one which is LED, it's not bad but it's not really a flash, more like the burst light you get on a phone. It'll light up the supject but wont freeze motion unless you have a fast shutter speed. They are handy for a bit more light for focusing.
It's worth making sure any ring light you get will fit your lens barrel. I gather theres issues with some compatability, not had that myself though but I'm using a Sigma 105mm mostly.
It's worth making sure any ring light you get will fit your lens barrel. I gather theres issues with some compatability, not had that myself though but I'm using a Sigma 105mm mostly.
- Messages
- 958
- Name
- Steve France
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a very old Marumi DRF14 Ring Flash and have found it very useful it difficult lighting. Picked it up on evilbay for £30.
IMHO its like all 'tools' experiment and use it when it helps, for example I found this Butterfly in bright sunlight resulted in overexposure and no depth, using ring flash and adjusting exposure give me better results IMHO...
IMHO its like all 'tools' experiment and use it when it helps, for example I found this Butterfly in bright sunlight resulted in overexposure and no depth, using ring flash and adjusting exposure give me better results IMHO...
- Messages
- 2,513
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I used to have a Marumi - relatively cheap and flimsy but worked well.
An ordinary flash will work just as well for macro in most scenarios though (that's what I use now) - was there are particular reason you wanted a ring flash?
An ordinary flash will work just as well for macro in most scenarios though (that's what I use now) - was there are particular reason you wanted a ring flash?
The main reason for asking about LED ring flashes in particular is that I'll be giving a talk on macro at my local camera club and I'd like to be able to say something informed about the relative pros and cons of flash-tube and LED ring flashes. I have the impression from what I've read that an LED ring flash can have about the same guide number as a flash-tube ring flash but delivers the light in a substantially longer pulse. I'd be grateful for any further information on that particular point.
- Messages
- 2,513
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah right I get you now... my understanding is that an LED light typically has nowhere near the power of a normal flash
You could try over on the Macro forum but I believe virtually all of the macro togs use diffused flash rather than LED for lighting
OK. Thanks. I'll certainly watch the YouTube. I think one aspect of my question is whether by 'power' we mean instantaneous brightness or total light delivered. From a physicist's point of view, I reckon 'power' ought to mean instantaneous brightness. Assuming that it does, you could have two flashes, the first could be ten times as bright as the second, but they could have the same guide number because the second delivers a pulse ten times as long as the first.
It does appear that the vast majority of LED-based lighting products state their light output in terms not directly comparable to flashtube-based lighting,
with no Guide Number reference of value to photographers. There are about 6500-8500 Lumens from a 250W 120VAC photoflood bulb, about 4000 Lumen from a 250W halogen, so there does not seem to be a single equivalence, either.
Output is typically stated in Lux, with no measurement equivalence ever used by still photography lighting products. For example, one LED product's specs are shown:
"8300 Lux at 3.3' (1m)" but conversion of Lux to Lumens changes per the beam angle...and the range is 312000 Lumens assuming 140 degrees to 137000 Lumens assuming 90 degrees...but NO spec is provided for beam angle for this product, so what can we assume? Obfuscation.
with no Guide Number reference of value to photographers. There are about 6500-8500 Lumens from a 250W 120VAC photoflood bulb, about 4000 Lumen from a 250W halogen, so there does not seem to be a single equivalence, either.
Output is typically stated in Lux, with no measurement equivalence ever used by still photography lighting products. For example, one LED product's specs are shown:
"8300 Lux at 3.3' (1m)" but conversion of Lux to Lumens changes per the beam angle...and the range is 312000 Lumens assuming 140 degrees to 137000 Lumens assuming 90 degrees...but NO spec is provided for beam angle for this product, so what can we assume? Obfuscation.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
With the LED (a continuous light in photographic terms) the total amount of light is based on the shutter speed.
There is no ‘equivalent’ of GN because the total ‘amount’ of light doubles every time you halve the exposure time.
If you bob over to the lighting forum and search LED you’ll see how difficult it is getting reliable output numbers for LED; partly because traditional ‘measurements’ don’t work with led, partly because some manufacturers don’t have a clue what they’re doing, and partly marketing BS.
There’s a whole more interesting discussion re ‘ring flash’ from a photographic point of view though.
As a rule we ‘light’ a subject to create shadows. Shadow = Form, ie it’s the tool we use to create a 2D image of a 3D object to make it look 3D . And a ring light is designed to create the opposite (light devoid of shadow).
IMHO the best ‘macro ring light’ is the multi head type thing Canon used to sell. But the more ridiculous a macro lighting rig looks, the better the final results.
Probably should have been 2 posts.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Full disclosure, this is also true of flash, but because all flashes have a ‘max’ GN stated that we believe to be equivalent, we mistakenly believe that a GN is an actual standard.
Whereas two flashes with identical power can advertise different GN’s because one only zooms to 90mm and the other zooms to 135. So you need to read the entire description of the GN, not just the headline number.
- Messages
- 958
- Name
- Steve France
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is personal choice, I did try an LED Ring and camera mounted flash, I found the ring flash gave a more mellow light as opposed to the harsher camera mounted flash. With close-up macro using either 60mm Nikon or 105mm Sigma I needed the ring in order to deliver the light evenly (lens overshadowed camera mounted). Ring Flash reduced shadows and provided a more even lighting , it also falls away quickly leaving the object to be more prominent separating the subject from the background to enhance depth perception.
Macro is not my normal thing tend to take 2 bodies out , 1 macro, 1 500+, I found wildlife Macro was fun whilst waiting for other opportunities, mostly my subjects are a minimum focus distances in either low light shadows of direct sunlight.
My limited research at the time lead me to believe that a ring rather than group of LED's gave a more natural light source and that was my experience.
Also on the basis of you get what you pay for, LED is much cheaper. Given I found an old Marumi at next to nothing I choose that route (I now have 2 of them)
PS I did have access to a Nikon R1C1 setup with 4 flash units and a commander, fantastic setup but it costs more than my Camera and Lens !
Yes, agree. With digital TTL flashes from the major camera manufacturers, they would provide a GN for flash with at certain narrow angle of coverage, like 200mm, and base the flash . model designation on the metric GN, And you could download a copy of the user manual and look at a 'in common' angle of coverage to compare power outut (like using 50mm FL coverage). Then, by comparing the 50mm FL coverage angle GN, you had an indicator about the marketing BS (higher GN model designation at 200mm zoom head vs. lower GN for 105mm zoom head). So I know my Metz 45 flashes have higher actual output power than the highest-end model Canon flash, even though the model designation GN seemed to be higher on the Canon.
It seems that the China-manufactured flash units that so many buy for the low price, publish NO TABLE of guide numbers at all even in owner manuals, So there is little for the consumer to use as guidance in the selection process between different vendors and models, as one has no information at all about any 'in common' coverage angle, nor any objective assessment using ISO 100 at a certain shutter speed and aperture....obfuscation, like LED source products. The consumer gets more confusion and less information, and less customer service and product support today than was offered 10 years ago...sad!
Last edited:
Ring flashes were originally developed for scientific and documentary photography of very small inanimate objects and live creature...and a flat, uniform illumination from a macro ringlight was the result. And ''light tents' also came about by providing the omnidirectional uniform illumination of inanimate objects
In the 90's, flashion photographers, seeking a uniquely distinctive style of lighting to differentiate their work, started to use very large diameter ring flash units to shoot full length fashion work. The hobbyists next adopted the ringflash and used it for head and shoulders portraiture, and the (for me) bothersome 'unnatural' (where do you see that in everyday life?!) catchlights seen in the subject's eyes resulted, and persist.
Today, so much of 'macro' work is not for scientific/documentary purposes, but folks are trying for more aestheticallly pleasing recording of relatively small objects. And for that, we do NO want 'flat uniform' light, but we want to light to more classically mimic what we learned about for portraiture...a Main source with a somewhat weaker 'Fill' source, which provides the viewer with clues about form & texture of the item in the photograph and to flatter the subject via a more 3-dimensional portrayal.
In the 90's, flashion photographers, seeking a uniquely distinctive style of lighting to differentiate their work, started to use very large diameter ring flash units to shoot full length fashion work. The hobbyists next adopted the ringflash and used it for head and shoulders portraiture, and the (for me) bothersome 'unnatural' (where do you see that in everyday life?!) catchlights seen in the subject's eyes resulted, and persist.
Today, so much of 'macro' work is not for scientific/documentary purposes, but folks are trying for more aestheticallly pleasing recording of relatively small objects. And for that, we do NO want 'flat uniform' light, but we want to light to more classically mimic what we learned about for portraiture...a Main source with a somewhat weaker 'Fill' source, which provides the viewer with clues about form & texture of the item in the photograph and to flatter the subject via a more 3-dimensional portrayal.
Last edited:
