question about ringflash

I always have this question. if you have a reflective umbrella, can't you just block the center portion and get a ringflash? It will be big and will be extremely cheap. Why the need to such an expensive gear?

can you stick your lense through an umbrella?

You can't put a lens through the centre of it to create a light source that surrounds the lens axis.

The quality of light will be nothing like the direct, undiffused light of a circular flash tube.

Because of the shape, the catchlights won't be anywhere near round and the shadow distribution won't be perfectly even.

Ringflash is a lighting source that surrounds the lens on the camera.... Not sure how your going to do that with a umbrella...

Well, you could conceivably place the camera on a tripod in front of the umbrella and cover the view finder. The result should look very similar to a ring flash.

Note that the important aspect of the ring flash is not its ring form, but that it produces light around your camera lens.

i was talking to another photographer and he was saying you can also stand in front of a huge octabox and have the same effect

Rudeofus wrote in post #6810983
Well, you could conceivably place the camera on a tripod in front of the umbrella and cover the view finder. The result should look very similar to a ring flash.

Note that the important aspect of the ring flash is not its ring form, but that it produces light around your camera lens.

Important to who?

Plenty of photographers who dislike the perfectly flat on-camera ringflash look (myself included) have used ringflash as an off-camera fill source because of its other unique properties.

As for the umbrella idea, it just wouldn't be the same. One of the defining characteristics of a ringflash is even light combined with a hard shadow-edge (because the bare circular flash tube has a relatively large circumfrence but a relatively small surface area). A reflected, diffused light source like an umbrella doesn't produce the edge-definition that allows ringflash shots to light evenly without simply washing everything out.

Hermes wrote in post #6811115
Plenty of photographers who dislike the perfectly flat on-camera ringflash look (myself included) have used ringflash as an off-camera fill source because of its other unique properties.

How is this any different from a beauty dish?

Ook wrote in post #6811126
How is this any different from a beauty dish?

It's direct light from a thin circular flashtube, not deflected, diffused light from a large dish with a small opaque disc in the middle.

The ringflash light is more specular (for want of a better word) than that of a beauty dish or a softbox but it is still circular and lights evenly so used as fill in the same scenario it will produce more contrast and nice, even highlights which is what you want for a lot of beauty work.

I know everyone seems to love their huge softboxes and softlighters but believe it or not, there are plenty of situations where they are too soft for day to day beauty work.

Hermes wrote in post #6811115
Important to who?

To a measly amateur like me for instance ...

Hermes wrote in post #6811115
Plenty of photographers who dislike the perfectly flat on-camera ringflash look (myself included) have used ringflash as an off-camera fill source because of its other unique properties.

As for the umbrella idea, it just wouldn't be the same. One of the defining characteristics of a ringflash is even light combined with a hard shadow-edge (because the bare circular flash tube has a relatively large circumfrence but a relatively small surface area). A reflected, diffused light source like an umbrella doesn't produce the edge-definition that allows ringflash shots to light evenly without simply washing everything out.

Looking at it from your level, there might be a huge difference between an umbrella with a gobo and a real ring flash. And there may me uses for a precisely defined light source. I unserstand that and I sure appreciate the extra insight you provided.

As I understood the original poster's question, he doesn't play in this league (I definitely don't - by a far stretch). I (and probably the TO as well) face the problem that I would like to get the standard off the shelf ring flash look but there's no cheap way of doing this with a compact flash. An umbrella costs a fraction of what these newly released ring flash adapters cost ...

Rudeofus wrote in post #6811805
To a measly amateur like me for instance ...

Looking at it from your level, there might be a huge difference between an umbrella with a gobo and a real ring flash. And there may me uses for a precisely defined light source. I unserstand that and I sure appreciate the extra insight you provided.

As I understood the original poster's question, he doesn't play in this league (I definitely don't - by a far stretch). I (and probably the TO as well) face the problem that I would like to get the standard off the shelf ring flash look but there's no cheap way of doing this with a compact flash. An umbrella costs a fraction of what these newly released ring flash adapters cost ...

I can appreciate that - the problem is that it won't give you a 'ringflash' look, it will give you an 'umbrella with a gobo' look. If you like that look then brilliant, I was just pointing out that it's not the same thing.

What exactly is it about the ringflash look that you like and are trying to find a cheaper method of creating? if it's the catchlight and the wrap-around light emanating from a thin circumference then you'd be better-off creating a ring-shaped mask for a softbox and using that. It still wouldn't be a ringflash but at least the catchlights would actually be ring-shaped, you'd be able to control the thickness of the ring, and the whole source would be flatter with more defined edges than if trying to do it with an umbrella.

If it's just the catchlights you want then you might as well just save yourself a lot of hassle and photoshop them in like everyone else does

Well here's what I'd like to achieve: nice frontal lighting with a slim but visible shade under the chin plus some separation of the subject from a bright background. All this with an ST-E2 and two Metz AF-1 48s and umbrellas and an old bed sheet as nearly white back ground. And no chimping, since I shoot film (EOS 3). Ideally the second flash would be usable as kicker or hair light to highlight my baby daughter's blond curly hair.
Note: this has nothing to do with professional photography, it's a simple and cheap amateur setup for improvised home studio. And for that level of photography I do believe (no experience yet, I just liked the idea) that an umbrella with gobo and the camera in front of that gobo could at least get me close. I won't earn prices, but at least sometimes smiles from my family


PS: BTW: no idea what the TO tried to achieve, I just wrote for myself.

Generally a ring flash should be used in a studio setting where the ring flash is mainly fill light, while other soft light sources are being used to create shadows. But in the case of using one of those ring light adapters it creates a much softer look than any on camera speedlight with a diffuser. Anyone whos ever shot a wedding knows that anytime you are shooting close you are going to get chin shadows with a flash in the hot shoe or off camera on a bracket. This is where ringlights are great as a main light source.

Hermes wrote in post #6811161
It's direct light from a thin circular flashtube, not deflected, diffused light from a large dish with a small opaque disc in the middle.

The ringflash light is more specular (for want of a better word) than that of a beauty dish or a softbox but it is still circular and lights evenly so used as fill in the same scenario it will produce more contrast and nice, even highlights which is what you want for a lot of beauty work.

I know everyone seems to love their huge softboxes and softlighters but believe it or not, there are plenty of situations where they are too soft for day to day beauty work.

Thanks for the explanation!