Ring light question

[Ella29]

I'm a studio photographer and do mostly portrait and family filming. I like to catch the smallest details and through the photo tell about a man. I'm just starting to gain momentum in the learning process. I found an article about ring lightsring lights. Do you often use such equipment?
Until now, I can not decide what is better for me. Do I need fluorescent lamps to provide a minor green shade or LED lamps that add a bit of pink one. Which are better at work and more often used?

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC. Would you mind clicking the "My Profile" button at the top of this page and adding your name and where you are from to your profile?

Rather than adding your question to an existing thread, this is really a new topic, so I have moved it to a new thread.

Photography goes through "fashions" and ring lights (or better yet, ring flash) were once a "must have" accessory especially fashion or beauty photography. It gives a soft, shadow free light that is well suited for that role as it can hide blemishes and was at one time a common type of lighting for this genre. The downside is that the light it creates tends to be flat and uninteresting as well as creating doughnut shaped catch-light in the eyes of the subject (which is something not everyone finds to be attractive). Ring lights have been out of fashion for a number of years now.

As for the design shown in the article you link to, these are continuous light sources, i.e. they give off relatively little light, so one has to shoot at high ISO settings and wide open apertures, so not really all that suitable for portrait photography, regardless of what the article implies. I have an Orbis Ring Flash, which can be used with pretty well any small flash, but frankly have not used in about five years. I suspect Orbis is no longer in business.

Strobist has a decent (but dated) article on these types of units. https://strobist.blogspot.ca/2009/10...es-abr800.html

To answer your question, it's probably not a type of light I would look at using currently. If lighting technique fashions change, then perhaps yes, but definitely not a continuous light source one for shooting people.

P.S. - Just an additional thought triggered by Ted's comment #3. Green is not a colour that is particularly attractive when shooting people, i.e. skin tones. Any light that adds a green cast (a lot of fluorescent fixtures have a characteristic green spike), should be avoided in most portraiture. If one wants to add an element of uneasiness into an image for a particular genre (horror, some cosplay roles, etc.), a green cast can do this.

[xpatUSA]

Do I need fluorescent lamps to provide a minor green shade or LED lamps that add a bit of pink one?

Welcome, Ella.

The question about lamps is too simple because there many kinds of fluorescent lamp and LED lamp. That is to say - some might give a green cast or a pink cast, but certainly not all.

[rpcrowe]

These are only my opinions...

Ring lights are O.K. (but not great) for macro work. They can provide quick and dirty flat lighting. However my Yongnuo ring light is able to control the light a bit because I can adjust the intensity of either side of the ring individually to allow some shadow sculpting.

As far as using ring lights for portraiture, I kind of class them in the category of nose rings and face piercings; popular with many people but, ugly as heck! The donut shaped catch lights in the eyes remind me of the Grade B science fiction movies of the 1950's.

As far as skin color is concerned, if you shoot in RAW, you have control over the white balance of your image (basically) whatever light source you are using. I qualified the statement because if you mix light sources (flash + LED + fluorescent combined) you sometimes have problems getting the white balance you desire...

This is not always the case, I regularly mix light sources when shooting dog portraits and use a white balance target to establish my white balance.



I like using studio flash for portrait work because:

1. The modeling light provides WYSIWYG shooting; while using hotshoe flash in the Strobist fashion, doesn't let you see what your lighting is like until you shoot the image.

2. You need a LOT of continuous light to attain a decent shutter speed and f/stop in portraiture. This is hot with incandescent sources. While fluorescent and LED sources are not hot, the bright light will often annoy your subject and/or cause their pupils to contract into tiny spots.

3. Studio-type flash can integrate better than hotshoe flashes in using light modifiers.

One drawback of studio flash is that you need a/c power unless you have a battery operated flash.

[dem]

I do not like using ring flashes for portraiture because of the catch lights they leave in the eyes.

Welcome to the forum. Who is the dude in your avatar? He looks familiar

EDIT. Got the dude - Anton Pavlovich Chekhov!

[Shadowman]

I do not like using ring flashes for portraiture because of the catch lights the leave in the eyes.

Welcome to the forum. Who is the dude in your avatar? He looks familiar

Dem,

That might be the reason the OP wants to use the ring lights, I've seen a few programs that can add specific shapes to the eyes afterward; for me a speckle of light is enough though.

[Manfred M]

Dem,

That might be the reason the OP wants to use the ring lights, I've seen a few programs that can add specific shapes to the eyes afterward; for me a speckle of light is enough though.

John - any flash modifier can do that; and as the OP has already identified as a studio shooter, I would expect that we would see these in their work.

One reason that some people prefer the light from umbrellas and octaboxes is that the catch lights are round. Regular rectangular or square reflectors give square or rectangular catch lights. Ring flash gives donut-shaped reflections.

Slightly off topic, that was always one of the issues with catdioptric (mirror lenses) as they produced donut-shaped bokeh and again, that is something a lot of people did not particularly like.

[Shadowman]

John - any flash modifier can do that; and as the OP has already identified as a studio shooter, I would expect that we would see these in their work.

One reason that some people prefer the light from umbrellas and octaboxes is that the catch lights are round. Regular rectangular or square reflectors give square or rectangular catch lights. Ring flash gives donut-shaped reflections.

Slightly off topic, that was always one of the issues with catdioptric (mirror lenses) as they produced donut-shaped bokeh and again, that is something a lot of people did not particularly like.

Hi Manfred,

Another reason I brought it up is that I watched a video where the photographer used a DIY setup using LED light strips in a star shaped formation. The setup was huge as the strips were at least 18" long but it worked and was something that could be easily disassembled for other configurations.

Here's the link to the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgj39jkGhiE

[William W]

Commentary removed.

I misunderstood the description of the Lights in the LINK.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

WW

[William W]

. . . As for the design shown in the article you link to, these are continuous light sources, . . .

I find some of the descriptions of the products in the LINK confusing. On my first read, I thought all the products in the LINK were CONTINUOUS LIGHTING, now I am unsure.

I removed my previous post (Post #9) because that commentary was on the basis that all the products that the OP was considering, were in fact, Continuous Lighting.

I now re-post that commentary below with the view that it pertains to all the products in the link which are continuous lighting.

I encourage the OP to ONLY consider Flash (Studio Strobes and/or Hot-shoe mounted Flash Units) for all Studio Portraiture.

Additionally I would advise NOT to buy Ring FLASH Unit as the first and/or the major purchase for Portraiture.

Ring Flash is quite limited in its application and versatility for Studio Portrait work and less so for location Portraiture.

Ring Flash do provide a definitive look, but the relatively limited ability of Light Modification for Ring Flash Units makes them not a prudent first choice nor a value for money choice where one is "starting to gain momentum in the learning process".

Previously Post #9 follows...

I'm a studio photographer and do mostly portrait and family filming. I like to catch the smallest details and through the photo tell about a man. I'm just starting to gain momentum in the learning process. I found an article about ring lightsring lights. Do you often use such equipment?
Until now, I can not decide what is better for me. Do I need fluorescent lamps to provide a minor green shade or LED lamps that add a bit of pink one. Which are better at work and more often used?

We have built three Portrait Studios and my first (paid) Portrait work was in the 1970s: in that time I have worked using Tungsten and Photoflood. The advancement of and the lower cost of Studio Flash and/or Portable Hot-shoe mounted Flash Units makes any continuous lighting for PORTRAITURE a very poor second choice.

I know of no experienced / pro Portrait Photographer who uses Continuous light for Studio Portraiture. There are two main reasons for NOT using continuous Light (not in order of priority):
1. Colour Balance inconsistency / Colour Temperature inconsistency (two issues related but not exactly the same)
2. Subject Movement Blur caused by too slow Shutter Speed/ alternative is to bump the ISO

WW

[Manfred M]

I know of no experienced / pro Portrait Photographer who uses Continuous light for Studio Portraiture.

Peter Hurley, the well know head shot photographer, is pretty well exclusively shooting continuous light in his studio. That being said, he uses some very high end LED lights from Wescott.

https://peterhurley.com/

https://www.fjwestcott.com/shop/lighting/led/flex

[William W]

Peter Hurley . . .

Thanks.

Yes. I forgot about Peter, my oversight in my attempt to state what is the mainstream.

Yes Continuous Lighting is making advances and is no longer "HOT".

The mainstream and majority of Portrait Photographers are still using Flash/Strobe - so please take that as the general point I am making. and thus my advice to direct the OP to Flash and not continuous lighting.

Peter is an advocate (or ambassador) for Westcott Lighting. One of his talking points is (small) Pupil Size.

If I remember correctly from one of his workshops, he can be pulling around 1/60th, which is fine in a controlled shoot with actors or models or talent that can take instruction: I am not necessarily confident using that Shutter Speed for a Family Portrait with Continuous Lights - and (from memory) I think Peter stressed using a much bigger (i.e. more powerful) lighting bank for location Family Portraiture. (thus a faster Shutter Speed)

Not sure what a full set of Wescott LED Lights and Modifiers that would be the basic necessary for a Family Portrait, but I expect the rig to be reasonably more than three Strobe Heads and Modifiers.

Also I think Peter (sometimes/often) uses Flash to kick as a backlight or on the background, even for some of his 'headshots'.

WW

[Manfred M]

Agreed Bill. Peter is an exception, but he influences a lot of photographers. For head shots, showing a lot of the subject's irises makes sense because the image concentrates on the head. For portraits where the emphasis is on more than the subject's face, this becomes less important. I agree; models and actors are used to the lights and can handle this approach better than members of the general public.

I know one local portrait photographer who dangles a bare light bulb near where the subject is located to cause the pupils to close down. He shoots standard studio lights (with modelling lights on) and I suspect that the irises are not quite as small as Hurley's, but still better than straight studio lights with modelling lights. Most of his work is with models trying build or add to their portfolios, so your comment on models and actors applies to his approach as well.

[William W]

. . . It is still unclear to me if all the products in the link are Continuous Lighting, as some are described as "Flash".
Anyway I am traveling and working OS all of next week and will probably not be on CiC. l am interested in how this conversation develops and will check in when I return.

WW

[Black Pearl]

I'm a studio photographer and do mostly portrait and family filming. I like to catch the smallest details and through the photo tell about a man. I'm just starting to gain momentum in the learning process. I found an article about ring lightsring lights. Do you often use such equipment?
Until now, I can not decide what is better for me. Do I need fluorescent lamps to provide a minor green shade or LED lamps that add a bit of pink one. Which are better at work and more often used?

Presumably you have a local or main dealer you buy your studio equipment from? That being the case they all have hire facilities for regular and even none regular customers so you can easily try out a number of options to see which suits your photographic style.

[Manfred M]

. . . It is still unclear to me if all the products in the link are Continuous Lighting, as some are described as "Flash".

The light sources for all these devices are listed as either fluorescent or LED. The use of "flash" in the naming of the LimoStudio Ring Flash Light seems to be deliberately misleading. The description definitely mentions that this is nothing more than a LED light.

[xpatUSA]

. . . It is still unclear to me if all the products in the link are Continuous Lighting, as some are described as "Flash".

For one such:

Over on Amazon Q&A it says:

"Is this a continuous light? Can I use it for video?

Answer:
You can actually use this for video ! It works great , you can always switch the intensity of light
By Amazon Customer on September 6, 2016 Of course
By dawnita summers on September 6, 2016"

These are customer's responses, though.

I like little Dawn's response - short and to the point.