« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 9 posts | 
by Bruce Sherman on Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:22 am
User avatar
Bruce Sherman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4421
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Rockport, TX
In my brief experience with macro photography I have found that available light is not always sufficient. I have played with my Yongnuo Nikon TTL compatible flash off camera on a short arm attached to a mini ball head, with a soft box attached to the flash. Results are OK but it seems like its difficult to get the camera/flash into tight spots. I have seen dozens of homemade soft box/diffusers on youtube videos. They are very cost effective but none I have seen look like they are very durable.

I recall a recent post by Tim Zurowski about using two flashes. Seems like this would make my predicament even more difficult.

The Sigma EM-140 DG Macro Ring Flash looks very interesting. It seems like it would be much easier to handle and get in tight spots than a camera with one or two full size flashes and soft boxes.

I would love to hear from anyone with thoughts or experience with the Sigma ring flash.

Thanks in advance.
Bruce Sherman
[url]http://www.pbase.com/brucesherman[/url]
 

by Kim on Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:59 am
Kim
Forum Contributor
Posts: 646
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Bruce I have no direct experience with the Sigma ring flash but I do with an alternative idea. Below is a link to a video led light with barn doors, removeable gels, wireless remote control on colour temp and brightness etc. Plus it fits on the hot shoe of most Dslr's or on a stand/tripod or handheld or simply placed on the ground. I often clamp my ones in place as required.

Many people are using them for macro now as you get a constant ligh that you can dial up or down along with the colour temp on most models. Plus you can set up the shot in live view and see exactly how the light will look. It is a very versatile setup and dosn't limit like the ring lites can.

Works great for potraits and family events with out the harsh flash to disrupt the family too, plus doubles as a light source if you need to illuminate a situation, flat trye at night etc..

https://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/go ... 08-ii-with

https://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/ap ... -led-panel

There are many options on ebay so you could easily pick a cheep version to see how you go.
 

by kiwijohn on Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:31 am
kiwijohn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 65
Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Hi Bruce 
I have used the Sigma EM-140 DG to photograph mosses / lichens on trees and on the ground amongst stones and roots etc. where there is little space to manoeuvre big flash heads and diffusers. My working distance from front element to subject is often 3-4cm. With a 60mm macro lens I like the way I can rest the end of the lens on my knuckle braced against the tree and pivot it to change the distance and get precise and steady focus.
Even without diffusers many macro flashes sit on wide rings surrounding the lens and these often prevent one from getting close to many subjects, or they create a deep shadow area just where you need focusing and composition light to fall. Built in focus lamps are usually pathetically weak and ineffective. So using softboxes on flashes in tight corners is hopeless at times because there is simply not enough room!

I have used the Sigma successfully with my Nikon D810 for a number of years. I use the older 60mm Nikon Micro lens and the new Tamron 90mm Macro lenses for my closeup work. For a composition/focusing light I use a home-made setup of 2 cannibalised COB LED lights that I attach to the front of the flash with small neodymium magnets. For power I have a small 1000mAh 5v lithium (emergency phone charger) battery velcroed to the back of the flash ring.
The Sigma gets you into tight spaces because its outer diameter is smaller than some other makes of flash (Eg the Nikon SB-R200's).
It can be a bit temperamental at times though and this necessitates doing thorough startup tests before starting work to ensure it is behaving itself when you first fix it on the camera hotshoe. For example, it will frequently fire off at seemingly full power, resulting in vastly overexposed images at first. Only turning it (and the camera) off and starting again, first turning on the camera, then the flash, will resolve this.
I also have the Nikon D850, and it will not fire at all on this body. I will have to do some research to find out why this is. (The Nikon SB-R200's work fine on the D850.) Perhaps someone can throw some light on this? (Pun intended!)
Hope this helps.
John Sibley
 

by Wildflower-nut on Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Wildflower-nut
Forum Contributor
Posts: 825
Joined: 4 Mar 2008
Ring flash has always had the knock that it tends to produce a flat clinical lighting unless you are really on top of the subject as is the previous commentator. Dual flashes using portraiture like positioning and TTL fill flash has been around a long time being championed by George Lepp 25+ years ago. The problem with flash in general is it is difficult to know what you have until after the fact. To my mind, you want a photograph that does not look like flash was used. The difference between a good flash picture and a poor one is rather subtle. It becomes a trial and error process in my experience. Digital has made this much better because you can review it on the back of the camera. The only time I use flash has been for insects with a hand held camera using the high basic position for the flash that dates back to Larry West and John Shaw.

Tripods, cable (electronic) releases, and long exposures for my work has always been a part of macro photography in the field. The higher iso's available today compared to Kodachrome 64 and 25 has made a big change in the length of the exposure. I personally use reflectors and now almost exclusively video led lights (amazon's cn-160). Some people also use small flashlights which act as a spot light or lighting from the back to make a flower glow. The advantage is you can visually see what you are going to get before you take the picture. The only disadvantage of these are they are comparatively low power so you have to be working within a couple of feet or so. Long macro lenses (200mm) help with background control and give you more space for reflectors flash etc. Over the years, I've used 50mm, 100mm, 150mm, 180mm and 200mm lenses in the field. I've used a 180mm for the last 20 years and have never looked back (I'd have a 200mm but not available in canon line). Only time I use something shorter is if I cannot move back far enough and then I use a 24-105 as in those situations you are very unlikely to need more than 1/4 life size magnification.
 

by Mike in O on Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:45 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
The secret of ring flashes is to use the modeling aspect present in some flashes to negate the flat clinical light that you mention.
 

by Bruce Sherman on Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:23 pm
User avatar
Bruce Sherman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4421
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Rockport, TX
Wildflower-nut wrote:Ring flash has always had the knock that it tends to produce a flat clinical lighting unless you are really on top of the subject as is the previous commentator.  Dual flashes using portraiture like positioning and TTL fill flash has been around a long time being championed by George Lepp 25+ years ago.  The problem with flash in general is it is difficult to know what you have until after the fact.  To my mind, you want a photograph that does not look like flash was used. The difference between a good flash picture and a poor one is rather subtle.  It becomes a trial and error process in my experience. Digital has made this much better because you can review it on the back of the camera.  The only time I use flash has been for insects with a hand held camera using the high basic position for the flash that dates back to Larry West and John Shaw.  

Tripods, cable (electronic) releases, and long exposures for my work has always been a part of macro photography in the field. The higher iso's available today compared to Kodachrome 64 and 25 has made a big change in the length of the exposure.  I personally use reflectors and now almost exclusively video led lights (amazon's cn-160).  Some people also use small flashlights which act as a spot light or lighting from the back to make a flower glow.  The advantage is you can visually see what you are going to get before you take the picture.  The only disadvantage of these are they are comparatively low power so you have to be working within a couple of feet or so. Long macro lenses (200mm) help with background control and give you more space for reflectors flash etc.  Over the years, I've used 50mm, 100mm, 150mm, 180mm and 200mm lenses in the field.  I've used a 180mm for the last 20 years and have never looked back (I'd have a 200mm but not available in canon line).  Only time I use something shorter is if I cannot move back far enough and then I use a 24-105 as in those situations you are very unlikely to need more than 1/4 life size magnification.
Thanks for all the info. Is the cn-160 light you mention theNeewer CN-160 LED Video Light? Do you use it off camera and do you use just one?
Bruce Sherman
[url]http://www.pbase.com/brucesherman[/url]
 

by Wildflower-nut on Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:38 pm
Wildflower-nut
Forum Contributor
Posts: 825
Joined: 4 Mar 2008
I use it off camera. Generally just one but you can use two as well. I usually carry 2.
 

by kiwijohn on Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:55 pm
kiwijohn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 65
Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Wildflower-nut wrote:I use it off camera.  Generally just one but you can use two as well.  I usually carry 2.
Surely you are then back to the original problem of trying to get bulky flash diffusers (and LED panels) into tight spaces?

You're right about the flat clinical lighting with near-lens flash tubes though.

You've got me thinking now - could I get my narrow COB LED's off the front of the flash ring and above the subject slightly to alleviate the flatness of the light? Mmmm!

John
 

by Wildflower-nut on Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:31 pm
Wildflower-nut
Forum Contributor
Posts: 825
Joined: 4 Mar 2008
Whether you need a diffuser or not depends on the relative size of the subject, your light source and the distance between.  For example the sun is large but very far away so it acts like a point light source.  I don't need a diffuser as my video light source is comparatively large, has a frosted filter, and I hold it in close.  I'm using a 180mm lens which means I have ample space between the camera and the subject unless am going for big magnification. Camera is on tripod, cable release held in one hand and light in the other.  If necessary, I can hold the cable release and light in one hand.  Unless there are cloudy conditions I use a diffuser to diffuse sunlight striking the subject.  Most people these days use a collapsible circular translucent disk for this as they are easier to carry.  I use a white umbrella for a diffuser as it is self supporting.

Some flash rings have the ability to light up in sections which can help to create a less clinical look.

What is your typical subject and magnification?  Are you trying to use this as fill or a main light.  Mine is flowers typically photographed at no larger than quarter life size. With a canon 180mm at life size you still have roughly 10" between the lens and the subject.  Add a 1.4x converter and you have even more.  For my use, I typically have three feet or more.  The key to many of your issues is a long lens.

John Gerlach recently published a book on flash photography in nature.  Might want to take a look at it.  I've toyed with flash over the years but even with TTL flash, there seems to be too much trial and error for my taste.  That said there are a lot of excellent photos taken that way. 
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
9 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group