ring flash portraits

Hi!

Im going to be doing some close up images of people and was considering the Sigma EM-140/EM140 DG Ring Flash...ive done a search on the forum and cant find too much info on using these for portraits etc. Would this unit be powerful enough?, i found a few posts mentioning for proffessional glamour they use mega super rings....if anybody could clarify i would be most greatful!

Many Thanks


River Cottage

Why do you want to use a ring light for portraits? My understanding is you often get quite flat photos, with no shadows to show shape, unless you use the type where you have more power on one side.

thats what im kind of after, quite a flat look with lots of detail....i hear they are used quite a bit in glamour photography, but these are the high end heads, just wanting to know if the smaller macro ring lights would do a good job close up


River Cottage

Good question.

Also, does anyone know of any full size glamour ring flashes available in the UK?

Profoto (made in Sweden) Pro-7 ringflash, like the other Pro-7 heads, works on all Profoto Pro-3, Pro-5, Pro-6 and - of course - Pro-7 generators. It's also possible to use Pro-3, 5 and 6 heads on actual Pro-7 generators.

There is a big difference from a macro light and a ring flash. You have many options that are available to you no matter where you live in the world. As mentioned, the Profoto 7, also the Profoto Acute, the Hensel and the Broncolor.

Check out this DIY link. There's another one around here, but I can't seem to find it.

http://www.noestudios.​com/photo/ringlight/

I love the "ring light look" and will probably give this project a shot this weekend.

-moore

>>I love the "ring light look" and will probably give this project a shot this weekend.<<

Frankly the 'fashion shot' look appears to be nothing but a blown out photo (tons of highlights on the skin!) that make the model into a featureless mannequin wearing costly fashions they all want you to buy. It's the 'hip look' that pervades the fashion industry, that photographically sucks. If it sells photos (and fashions) that's great, but I can't wait for the look to fall into disfavor (as it should, like cuisine minceaux arose and fell out of favor decades ago!

"Photographically sucks"? Do we really need to start the "photography is subjective" argument that arises every time someone says that a photo "sucks"? It's a different look, some people like it, some don't. I happen to think ringflash has its place and can make a for a nice photo if done properly. But I do agree that it is extremely trendy in fashion photography right now.

Thanks for your opinion...

[EDIT: Perhaps I over-reacted... just seemed like you were a little condescending.]

No, I am merely expressing my opinion of the look (it's like my choice of religion is mine, and yours is yours, and never the twain need to mee!).

As photographers we learn to try to maximize shadow and highlight detail. As photographers we learn to expose precisely to deal with the picky exposure latitude of slides or digital, to capture the most shadow and hightlight detail. The ringflash fashion shoot look instead tries to destroy facial detail in the highlight, so that the clothes are what the viewer sees. That serves the industry, but makes us, as photographers, go counter to the principles that we were taught to capture! (In a way it is a bit like a MD who performs cosmetic abortions...."Doctor, do you swear to preserve life and do no harm?")

To gain precisely the look we want, whatever that look may be. Lets face it, with work, the 'correct' exposure is easy. It's getting the look that's hard. The ring flash fashion look is popular, and i can see why. I like it. I'd love to have one.

Everyone should be taught to capture exactly the photograph that they see in their mind's eye. Technical perfection can never be the only goal; artistic perfection should be, although this is difficult, because artistic perfection does not exist. Photography is an art, not a science.

To the original poster, I've used ring flashes and have found them to be dissapointing. IMO they are too harsh even for fashion shots, and I prefer to use a variation of butterfly lighting for fashion shots, which at least keeps the skin tone even.

As for fashion lighting & photography being unartistic, well I don't really know what to say to that. In a fashion shoot the subject is the outfit, not the model, and the shot is lit to minimise shadow detail on the mask of the face as it distracts from the intended subject. As a photorapher, i've always felt that your task in a shoot you are being paid for is to present the subject as best you can.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with a shot that is evenly lit with no shadow - every technique has a purpose, but if you don't like or agree with this style of lighting (which is harder than some may have suggested to get right) then fair enough.

>>Photography is an art, not a science.<<

But even in pure art, there is technique whether it be good or bad. An oil painting with no training looks like that! My dad was an artist, and he studied oil techniques because his skill as an artist was reflected no only on his ability to draw, but also the right way to lay down oil paints! As a photographer I can blow out highlights just as well as the next guy, and I don't even need to spend large sums of money on a giant ringlight to do so!

I agree with Wilt !
beside the flat look of a ringflash, I think the halo-like shadow behind the subject is really distracting and I just can't understand why this look is the trend for fashion shots these days !! you can show the textures better with 2-3 softboxes or even an octa ! no need to blow the highlights !! I think the ring flash look is in favor of mid-end fashion photogs and brands ! have you ever saw Annie Leibovitz using one ?? she is using Softlighter II or Octa most of the time or have you ever saw a LV or YSL catalog shot with a ring flash ?
but my question is : is the ring flash good for beauty ? as it's a shadowless and even light with an interesting catch light ! I think the problem is that the ringflash is a PAIN for the subject ! I used them once and my subject was nearly blind after 10-15 shots !
any experience with the ring light in beauty shoot ?

KtooFallah wrote in post #10536997
I agree with Wilt !
beside the flat look of a ringflash, I think the halo-like shadow behind the subject is really distracting and I just can't understand why this look is the trend for fashion shots these days !! you can show the textures better with 2-3 softboxes or even an octa ! no need to blow the highlights !! I think the ring flash look is in favor of mid-end fashion photogs and brands ! have you ever saw Annie Leibovitz using one ?? she is using Softlighter II or Octa most of the time or have you ever saw a LV or YSL catalog shot with a ring flash ?
but my question is : is the ring flash good for beauty ? as it's a shadowless and even light with an interesting catch light ! I think the problem is that the ringflash is a PAIN for the subject ! I used them once and my subject was nearly blind after 10-15 shots !
any experience with the ring light in beauty shoot ?

Although I think the ring flash is overused sometimes I think your bringing up Annie Leibovitz doesn't work exactly here. Correct me if I am wrong but she is more of a portrait photographer versus a fashion photographer. Her main subject is the person being shot and the clothes are simply used to accentuate the person. In fashion photography it would be the opposite. The model is a "living stand" for the clothes if you will. The clothes are the main subject and the model is there as an accessory to accentuate them. In that case it makes sense to have flat light on her so your eyes are drawn to the clothes and not to the model.