MACRO RING LITE FOR CANON CAMERAS

Hello, I'm new here. I want to buy a new macro ring ...I thought to this http://www.macroringfl​ash.com/yongnuo-yn-14ex-c/ but i'm not sure if it's good...i'm looking forward your opinion...

i'd stay away from ring flash if you are going to shoot living subjects as the circular reflections of the light can be distracting and decent diffusion is hard to achieve. Not to say you can't get very good results on less reflective subjects but an off camera flash or pair of flashes is more adaptable.

racketman wrote in post #17753567
i'd stay away from ring flash if you are going to shoot living subjects as the circular reflections of the light can be distracting and decent diffusion is hard to achieve. Not to say you can't get very good results on less reflective subjects but an off camera flash or pair of flashes is more adaptable.

+1. Not a big fan of ringlight. Even if you eventually decides to get one, I think you'll be better off getting a much cheaperYN-14EX

SteB1 is working on a new way of diffusing the Ringflash and the result is really promising. Not sure if he has shared this in forums or not.

orionmystery wrote in post #17755601
+1. Not a big fan of ringlight. Even if you eventually decides to get one, I think you'll be better off getting a much cheaperYN-14EX

SteB1 is working on a new way of diffusing the Ringflash and the result is really promising. Not sure if he has shared this in forums or not.

+1. Even if Steb1 does figure out how to diffuse one a ring flash will still give you flat light if it's mounted to the end of a lens. The flash heads are just too parallel to the lens, and even ratio control won't improve the light quality enough to keep an image from looking flat. Ring flashes are very appealing because they are so simple to use, but that simplicity comes at the cost of getting good light quality...

Dalantech wrote in post #17756883
+1. Even if Steb1 does figure out how to diffuse one a ring flash will still give you flat light if it's mounted to the end of a lens. The flash heads are just too parallel to the lens, and even ratio control won't improve the light quality enough to keep an image from looking flat. Ring flashes are very appealing because they are so simple to use, but that simplicity comes at the cost of getting good light quality...

You can take the ring light off the mount (front of lens):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/dmVx​MU

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/dns2​pj

orionmystery wrote in post #17757930
You can take the ring light off the mount (front of lens):

That's better than attaching it to the lens Kurt, but still "flat" because the flash is center mounted. Still too in line with the lens -need those shadows to fall to the side instead of straight down.

Edit: If you have to go to that much trouble to diffuse a ring light then you're better off with a standard flash...

I just bought a Yungnuo YNEX14C to use with my 6D and 100 f/2.8 Macro. I set the ring lite to use a 2:1 A/B flash tube ratio. At the same time, I also got inspired by seeing some of the modifications people do in order to use their regular speedlites they already have. I modified a video bracket I already had to accept a cheap mini-ball head, to which I attached an off camera shoe cord and my 430EXII with a mini Vello soft-box. Both setups work pretty darn well in my opinion, but I felt like the ring flash was easier to mount and less awkward to hand hold. I guess it depends on what you're looking for, but since I just faced this same dilemma I wanted to share my experience. The other responses to this thread are from masters of macro photography, which I am not, so take my advice with that in mind.

Taken using Yungnuo ring lite:

IMAGE LINK: https://blazinbob.smug​mug.com …/IMG_1328-X2.jpg&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: https://blazinbob.smug​mug.com …i-QNpv39h-X2.jpg&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: https://blazinbob.smug​mug.com …i-TZWmbWf-X2.jpg&lb=1&s=A

Dalantech wrote in post #17758036
That's better than attaching it to the lens Kurt, but still "flat" because the flash is center mounted. Still too in line with the lens -need those shadows to fall to the side instead of straight down.

Edit: If you have to go to that much trouble to diffuse a ring light then you're better off with a standard flash...

No, i don't find it flat. I prefer really soft light than too much unflattering highlights. Besides, one can always add more punch to it in post processing.

Different preference in light. Enough said.

orionmystery wrote in post #17757930
You can take the ring light off the mount (front of lens):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/dmVx​MU R1014770 by Kurt (Orionmystery) G, on Flickr

Result:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/dns2​pj 8029656439_c1d1b6a603_​b copy by Kurt (Orionmystery) G, on Flickr

More info: http://orionmystery.bl​ogspot.my …11/hishams-macro-rig.html

That mod is pretty clever & I like the way the light works on the fly.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17760596
That mod is pretty clever & I like the way the light works on the fly.

Yeah, I really like it, too. I especially like that the light is so even (a.k.a. "flat"). But flat light works exceptionally well here.......it's especially nice because there are no visible shadows whatsoever. That's the real strength of a ring light (no shadows visible), and I don't know if that would be possible with suggestions to move the flash away from the camera. There are those occasions when we don't want any shadows, and that setup seems to work well for that objective.

once you've done all that you might as well have a 270EX in the same place. I like my ring flash for coins but wouldn't bother getting it off lens to do what I can do with simpler set up.

orionmystery wrote in post #17755601
+1. Not a big fan of ringlight. Even if you eventually decides to get one, I think you'll be better off getting a much cheaperYN-14EX

SteB1 is working on a new way of diffusing the Ringflash and the result is really promising. Not sure if he has shared this in forums or not.

I've posted it on this forum. Contrary to the opinion of someone else, the lighting is not flat, as it is reflected from above, and there is clearly direction to the lighting and relief in it. Unfortunately they don't understand the difference between flat lighting, and low contrast lighting, which is what is needed with macro flash. Flat lighting means frontal lighting with no shadows and no relieve. This is what an ordinary ring flash with no power ratio gives.

As I am directing the light down from above the subject, the lighting is not flat, and in fact the light is coming from the same direction as a diffused MT24EX.

SteB wrote in post #17777625
I've posted it on this forum. Contrary to the opinion of someone else, the lighting is not flat, as it is reflected from above, and there is clearly direction to the lighting and relief in it. Unfortunately they don't understand the difference between flat lighting, and low contrast lighting, which is what is needed with macro flash. Flat lighting means frontal lighting with no shadows and no relieve. This is what an ordinary ring flash with no power ratio gives.

As I am directing the light down from above the subject, the lighting is not flat, and in fact the light is coming from the same direction as a diffused MT24EX.

I know what flat light is SteB

No need to beat around the bush at who you're directing your comments to. I also design my diffusers based on what I know the light is doing, and what I want the light to do.

Low contrast light is actually preferred, because a sensor in a digital camera has a limited dynamic range. Our eyes and brain kind of do a low key HDR as we look at a scene.

P.S. You're not the only one who understands how to diffuse a flash...

Dalantech wrote in post #17777666
I know what flat light is SteB

You certainly don't know what "flat light" is. We've been through this before on Dpreview. You falsely claimed the light from my diffusers was "too top down" and "too flat". This is a contradiction in terms and oxymoronic. Top down lighting is the diametric opposite of flat lighting, which is frontal and with no shadows. Top down lighting is oblique lighting from nearly 90 degrees to the subject, whereas flat lighting is front on. Despite making these nonsense contradictory claims, you refused to admit you were mistaken. When I provided enlargements of small detail to show the micro shadows, which meant that it was objectively not flat lighting, you carried on making the same false claims. When I provided you with multiple references of what flat lighting was, you still refused to withdraw your false claims, despite being contradicted by the evidence.

I don't call sticking a bunch of commercial diffusers on the front of your flash heads with glue guns as designing anything. Gary Fong and Sto-Fen designed the diffusers you use.

Please don't expect any more responses.

Have you got no conscience? I am trying to help other photographers by sharing my diffuser designs. I don't demand people use my diffuser designs, and I had never made any claims about your diffusers, before you started slagging my diffusers. Even though I think the light from your diffusers is below par. All I did is to design my own diffusers to produce the lighting that I wanted. But you have been making snide remarks to other photographers about my diffusers, which are objectively and factually wrong.

Objectively, and quite clearly you were making critical remarks about my diffusers here, when you had never seen it. What sort of person does that? It is not factual, because you cannot criticise something you have never seen. Clearly you were criticising my diffusers on here, before I commented, and before you had even seen them.

I think that even top down light looks flat, especially when the shadow directly under the subject is blown out by a second light source.

As for how I build my diffusers: I use materials that were designed to diffuse light for photography because they don't add an odd color cast to my images. In cases where I could get the raw materials I used them, but for some I had to use what was commercially available. Using packing foam doesn't make the light better...

I think we'd be having this same conversation even if I had said something even remotely neutral. You do not handle constructive criticism well.