Lume cube or Aputure AL M9

[Ken MT]

Has any body compared the Lume cube with the Aputure AL M9? I am looking for fill in light for macro, especially fungus and insect photography.

[DanK]

I haven't, but I,d be curious to find out what you learn. From the specs, the Aputure looks more appealing to me, except that it might be hard to position stably on uneven ground.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnRostron]

Looking at the adverts, the Aputure looks the best buy. I might even be tempted myself. At present I use a couple of banks of LEDs, about 5cm by 20cm. I have a couple of sticks attached to each (using elastic bands) which I stick in the soil. I would think that I could do likewise with the Aputure.

John

[rpcrowe]

The nice thing about lighting for macro and other close-up shooting is that you do not need a powerful light source...

That is where LED lights come into their own... They are light and will give you a long life from a small battery.

However, as with any continuous light source, there are problems - especially when using the lights to shoot lively insects. In the case of insects, I might look towards a small flash setup.

When shooting sedentary subjects like fungus, you have no problems placing your lights. However when shooting lively creatures, it is probably best to have your light on a bracket attached somehow to your camera.

If you have a hotshoe flash of some type, an articulating bracket and a diffuser reflector will give you quite decent lighting. I have used this type of rig for a long time...



It has provided very nice results...



I have recently purchased this diffuser for one of our dog rescue volunteers as probably the easiest diffuser to set up with her hotshoe flash.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fomito-31cm-...EAAOSwlMFZFBvu

I was thinking that if a photographer would have the flash mounted on the hotshoe and then tilt the flash head about 45 degrees forward, this diffuser might give some really nice soft lighting.

Combining this with a small flash such as the Canon 270EX II or the very inexpensive Viltrox JY-610 II for a second light

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...E&gclsrc=aw.ds

on a straight bracket triggering the Viltrox as a slave from the main flash might work quite well. This "shower-cap" diffuser fits quite well on a tiny flash like the Viltrox or the 270EX II with the flash head of one of these tiny units pointing straight up.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/4x-Universal...EAAOSwBt5ZGyvG

A straight flash bracket is dirt cheap or on can easily be fabricated from a piece of aluminum stock...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dual-Flash-B...a/321650014572

The Canon 270EX II can be used as a slave as can the Viltrox. The Canon 270EX is a bit more powerful (in the land of the blind a one-eyed man is king) but, the Viltrox has manual features. The Viltrox also costs a fraction of what the 270EX II sells for,

Although the Viltrox is not listed as having HSS capability, I tested one at up to 1/4000 shutter speed and it did not have the problems associated with sync speed like a black bar across the frame.

As far as continous LED illumination goes, there are any number of very decent lights and light kits available such as this one...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Professional...AAAOSwYvFZI3sV

Finally, for quick and dirty shooting, a ring light is possible, However, it will give flat shadowless lighting that is not very flattering...

[JohnRostron]

This was taken with the set-up I describe above. It is a type of Boletus, but I'm not sure which.



The fungus itself is well-lit, but the background looks rather dark. I would prefer it to have been rather lighter. The Aputure looks as if it could well illuminate the background rather more.

John

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Ken,

I appreciate you said you were looking for a 'Fill' light solution, presumably for natural/sun light as the 'key' or 'main' light source, but once you start artificially adding light, you may succumb to the temptation to use it as a main light.

Thereafter; the key thing to recognise is that the laws of physics apply to macro just as much as other genres of photographer, so if you have any experience artificially lighting larger scale subjects (e.g. portraiture), you can apply it to your fungi and insect subjects, with the appropriate scaling factors for the smaller sizes and distances.

Looking at the two suggestions you asked about, I determine that the LumeCube will be a 'hard' light source, because its light emitting area (without diffuser) is fairly small, even compared to some insects, let alone the fungi. This will result in a hard light, which will give points of specular reflection off shiny insect body parts and hard edged shadows, even if you manage to get it quite close.

Talking of 'close'; remember that the inverse square law still applies, so the closer you place the main light source to the subject, the greater the light fall off with relative distance of various body/fungi parts (or background) from the light. This may, if you use only one, result in significant dimness on far side of the subject from the light. For this aspect, it's all about the ratio of distances, the absolute light levels and even surface area of light source doesn't much matter*. To give an extreme example; if your light source is say 10 cm from the nearest bit (left edge) of a 10 cm diameter flat topped fungi, I think I'm right in saying the light at the far (right) edge will be 2 stops lower intensity (because it's 20 cm from the light and only receiving a quarter of the intensity of the LH edge).

* OK, it does matter, but that's just a case of resolving the exposure correctly in the usual manner; by juggling iso, aperture, shutter speed, light 'power' (be that flash power or intensity of LED) and light to subject distance (all within practical limits).

All in all, that's probably why folks above (and me) would suggest the Aputure AL M9 (or similar) is a better bet because it emits light over a much greater surface area, so even if you place it at (maximum) twice its diagonal measurement from the subject, you should still get 'softer' light source that will better illuminate your subjects.**

** You may still want to use reflectors to help fill shadows though.

However, the downside to any continuous lighting for live insects is that they tend to get animated by it and then head towards it, possibly ruining your intended composition. This won't be an issue for shooting fungi - unless it attracts unwanted insects!

This is why flash may be better suited to shoot insects.

Hope those thoughts help,
Dave

[Mike Buckley]

I determine that the LumeCube will be a 'hard' light source, because its light emitting area (without diffuser) is fairly small, even compared to some insects, let alone the fungi. This will result in a hard light, which will give points of specular reflection off shiny insect body parts

The problem with the term, specular reflection, is that it has different meanings to different people. That explains why the authors of Light: Science & Magic don't use the term. One of those meanings is the synonym of the term, direct reflection. A direct reflection has only one meaning, that it is a mirror-like reflection of the light source. Direct reflections will be the same regardless of the relative size of the light source.

[DanK]

A direct reflection has only one meaning, that it is a mirror-like reflection of the light source. Direct reflections will be the same regardless of the relative size of the light source.

Mike,

I don't understand this. A direct reflection of anything should be proportional to its size. Try this: stand in front of a mirror with two flashlights of different sizes. Hold paper against your chest and aim the lights at the mirror so that the reflections are cast on the paper. The flashlight that has a variable beam width. The wider light will cast a wider image (unless it has a lens that concentrates the light source more).

Dan

[Mike Buckley]

You're correct, Dan, when considering no particular context. I wrote that direct reflections will be the same regardless of the relative size of the light source in the context that the discussion was about scenes being so small that they are being photographed with a macro lens. As an example, direct reflections on parts of small bugs will be the same whether a small light source or a large light source is used because most any light source will be larger than the subject, much less the few parts of the subject that will produce direct reflections. Using your example to make my point, if the mirror you use is smaller than both light sources you use, the direct reflections will appear the same.

[xpatUSA]

Talking of 'close'; remember that the inverse square law still applies, so the closer you place the main light source to the subject, the greater the light fall off with relative distance of various body/fungi parts (or background) from the light. This may, if you use only one, result in significant dimness on far side of the subject from the light. For this aspect, it's all about the ratio of distances, the absolute light levels and even surface area of light source doesn't much matter*. To give an extreme example; if your light source is say 10 cm from the nearest bit (left edge) of a 10 cm diameter flat topped fungi, I think I'm right in saying the light at the far (right) edge will be 2 stops lower intensity (because it's 20 cm from the light and only receiving a quarter of the intensity of the LH edge).

Hope those thoughts help,
Dave

Dave, the area of the light source can matter in some circumstances, i.e. when the light source is significantly larger than a "point source":

"The inverse square law can only be used in cases where the light source approximates a point source. A general rule of thumb to use for irradiance measurements is the “five times rule”: the distance to a light source should be greater than five times the largest dimension of the source."

Taking the examples of 10cm and 20cm distances, that rule says that the source of light must be smaller than 10/5 = 2cm in it's major dimension. 2cm being somewhat less than a inch, a flash with a diffuser on it (for example) is unlikely to qualify as a point source approximation and, therefore, the inverse square law will not apply fully.

Page 26 here applies: http://kronometric.org/phot/lighting...20handbook.pdf

Going to extremes, if the subject were lit from 10cm with a big reflector umbrella, the inverse square law would not apply at all!

[Dave Humphries]

Good points well made by Mike and Ted,

Thanks,
Dave