On-Axis Fill: Ring Fill Against Restricted Light

Having begun to explore fill with a ring flash, I knew there would be other ways to push light from on or near the lens axis. But before I tried them out, I wanted to learn how a ring light fill would work in combination with a more restricted key light.

Hard key light leaves hard shadows. And if you are not taking into account the ambient light (maybe the ambient light quality sucks, for instance) on-axis fill can reach into shadows and open them up in a highly controllable way.

Keep reading for two quick set-ups, and a refresher on ratio control without a flashmeter.


Swamp Thing

This summer as I was looking for any excuse to experiment with ring-as-fill, my son Ben returned from a day at camp wearing the shoes you see pictured at the top of this post.


My wife: "Do NOT come inside with those shoes. Clean them off with the hose outside."

Me: "Don't clean 'em yet! I want to shoot them. (... on your mother's great-grandma's antique cutting board, I did not say out loud...)"


Hey, we don't use the board for cooking. It is mostly used as decor against the counter backsplash. And it covers up the mess and tangled wires around the phone pretty well, too.

We only have a few minutes before dinner, so this will have to be quick. No problem, as I already have my background (secretly) picked out. I love shooting details like this for the family album, and these shoes say a lot about a well-spent summer day for a seven year-old boy.

Having seen what the ring would do against an umbrella, I wanted to play with some hard light. My thinking was, this combo will let me dial in however much texture I wanted by filling against a hard shaft of light.

But before I could make the hard key, I needed my ring flash as fill. I cranked my lens down to a very small aperture to hold focus and dropped the shutter speed to 1/250th to kill the ambient. Then, I adjusted the power output on the (manual) ring flash until I got the proper exposure.

(I was using a Ray Flash adapter fitted onto a Nikon SB-800 speedlight for the ring light.)

Now, since I was already way down on the aperture, I dropped the ISO a couple of stops to take the ring flash from being properly exposed down to a nice fill. I looked at the histogram and rear display and it looked like a nice "baseline exposure" for what would become my shadows in a moment.

This is no different than dialing down your ambient before you add in your key light, except that it was all being done with flash.

Now, for the hard fill.

Using a set of ten-dollar barn doors designed for small flashes, I closed off the spill of the key light until just a small beam was getting through from hard camera left. I used a 1/2-strength CTO gel to warm up the key somewhat to accentuate the color of the mud.

Given that my shooting aperture is set, as is the number of stops I have already dialed down my fill, the only thing left to do is to adjust the key light until the direction and exposure looks best.

No meters -- just eyeballing the relationship between the tones on the rear screen and making sure my histogram is not out of whack.

Quick and easy, and I notch another quick experience in my goal to get more comfy with on-axis fill. Honestly, the hardest thing about the shoot was smuggling the cutting board out of the kitchen (and back in) without Susan noticing.

I really like the ring-against-raking-light look on the muddy shoes. The highlights are crisp, but you can see right into the shadows -- exactly as much as I want, thanks to the lighting ratio on the fill. The ring also gives that characteristic wraparound shadow -- which looks kinda cool against the highlights, too.


Ring Against Grid

A few days before Ben's shoes, I had done a little more experimenting with ring fill and hard light, and I found myself growing more and more comfortable both with the technique itself and the key-to-fill ratios.

This portrait of Em, done in the last days of single digits before her tenth birthday, was the first time I had worked with ring and grid light. But I already had a good idea what to expect, thanks to experimenting earlier with on-axis fill and umbrella key in Dubai.

There are two ratios to consider here, and if you are into reverse engineering should be able to spot them by looking closely at the photo.

The first is the ratio of the ring (which will end up being the fill) over the ambient. You can see how far the ambient drops off by looking at the depth of the ring flash shadow (around Em) compared to the surrounding bricks in the areas of the photo not lit by the gridded key light.

The second ratio is that of the gridded key light over the ring fill light. This you can see in the shadows on Em's neck and under her nose. (These shadows are left by the key light, but are lit by the ring fill.)

Which means that in this setting, we have two control levers to adjust the contrast range of the photo. The ring flash was about a stop and a half over the ambient and the gridded key (coming from upper camera right) was another stop and a half over the ring light.

(If this shorthand exposure information doesn't make sense, take a look at this post.)

I have to say, I immediately loved the look of the ring fill against the gridded key. It was crisp and open all at the same time, and every portion of the photo was tonally legible in a controllable way.


Baseline Exposure Cheat Sheet

I was starting to get familiar with the Ray Flash, and was finding that it knocked off a little more than the one stop (vs. direct flash) advertised by the manufacturer. To be fair, after testing I found it to knock off about 1.2 stops -- if you used the 24mm throw as a bare-flash comparison.

Real-world (50mm throw) I would call it close to two stops. But that is still plenty powerful to use as a beautiful fill light at portrait distances outside.

Having experimented in a darkened room, I tested it to see how much light it would throw in a given ISO and power setting. To help me learn get faster at future setups, I stuck my standard cheat sheet on the Ray Flash:


The numbers:

1/2 power -- ISO 400 -- 10 Feet -- f/8


From there, I could quickly interpolate differences in any future setups to get a starting point for my power setting in manual.

Comfortable with the tests, I was ready to try ring light as fill on an assignment -- confident that I probably would not screw it up completely.

On-Axis Fill: Experimenting with Ring as Fill

Having talked about the inspiration to learn more about on-axis fill, I'd like to work through the process of studying a lighting idea to the point where you become totally comfortable with it.

For better or worse, my goal is for this experience to serve as a sort of template for how I approach a new lighting technique.

This week deals with first attempts to reverse engineer how people were getting that cool, controllable 3-D tonality in their shadows, specifically by using ring flash.

When struck by the idea of on-axis fill, ring light is a no-brainer. It doesn't get any more "on-axis" than that, so it was my obvious starting point. What I would go on to find out was not only were there many options for creating on-axis fill, but also a seemingly endless number of combinations between the quality and quantity of the fill and the key light.

Whenever I am struck by a new technique, my programmed response is usually to shoehorn it into the very next opportunity I have to shoot. I'm impatient that way. But the point is to learn it ASAP, and hopefully in a way that does not screw up a paying gig.

Professional shooters as notorious cowards thorough testers -- much more so than most amateurs I know. We want to do our screw-ups in relative privacy, and not on someone else's dime.

That's the way I normally work, but this time I was too impatient. I felt like a kid in a candy store, and wanted to start playing with on-axis fill immediately, if not sooner.

My first attempt at ring fill was against an umbrella key light, while shooting the lovely and enthusiastic Minty (that's her name) seen at the top of this post. It was at the Gulf Photo Plus event in Dubai. We were working very quickly, trying to get a selection of different looks from three different setups and outfit changes in the span of about 45 minutes.

To my credit I at least saved my on-the-job experimentation until the last of the three setups, which was outside of our conference room in the hall. The walls in the hall basically looked like seamless background paper, which was enough to qualify as a good setting in our academic conference environment.



The idea -- making this up as we went along -- was to position the key (umbrella, camera right) as I would if just shooting normally. Then I would dial in the ring fill and see what happened.

What ratio to use? Heck, I wasn't thinking that far ahead. In retrospect, it ended up being about one and a half stops -- too much fill, IMO.

Much like the first time I had shot someone with an umbrella against a sunset, I was happy enough with the first result that I did not press it by trying variations to see what would look better. That's a big mistake when trying new techniques, and one I will readily own up to. Because I do it over and over again.

In a turn on the old phrase "the perfect becomes the enemy of the good," it's more like "the good becomes the enemy of the way better."

Getting a cool result can keep you from pressing the idea further to see what else might happen. That's something you should always be on guard against.

When I edited my photos that night in my hotel room, I could see my problem much more clearly. The light directions were okay, but the ring fill had too much intensity. The result was that dimensionality had been stripped from the photo, and Minty had been reduced to almost a 2-D cutout.

It was like a layered paper sculpture, lit on different planes.

In general this is not a ring fill ratio I would use on people -- I'd want less of the fill. But, as with any screw up, you learn. And what I learned here was that on-axis fill is basically a control slider to enhance or compress the 3-D quality of your subject.


Much like a field goal kicker who misses a big kick by aiming too far to the right, I would overcorrect on my next attempt.

At left is Asif, a marketing exec in Dubai, whom I shot in the very next workshop. After Minty, you can be pretty sure I wasn't gonna over fill Asif. So naturally, rather than filling him a stop and a half down, I filled him at, like, four stops down.

Had I shot this for The Sun, our presses would have happily filled in all of those subtle, dark tones with nice, black ink. You cannot do this on newsprint and expect to get away with it.



The photo was obviously inspired by Peter Yang's eerie shot of Admiral Fox Fallon. I previously had worked through this poor-man's version of Yang's big, gridded reflector by substituting a small LumiQuest soft box instead. I used a Soft Box II at the time, but my preference now would be the new Soft Box III, as it is a little bigger. (Both will work, though.)

But what about the grid? Isn't that critical?

Well, no. Not really. It is what the grid does that is critical, which is to create a shaft of light that keeps the top of the person's head from being illuminated. You can also go that with a simple gobo.



As you can see from the diagram, the gobo allows the light to reach the subject's face, but not the top of the head. If you place the gobo closer to the subject, the line is harder. Place it closer to the light source and the line into darkness gets softer.

I like to place it pretty close to the (small) source, and at a height to where the subject's eyes can see about 3/4 of the light source. This tells me that the eyes will be positioned about 1/4 of the way into the transition from lit area to shadow area.

This is offset by the fact that the eyes are closer to the light source on a relative basis than are the lips, chin, etc. These two factors tend to cancel each other out in a cool way.

But this post is about ring fill, right? And besides, I am not put on this earth just to ape someone else's light. I want to shape it in new ways and do my own thing.

So I wanted to keep the dark look of the photo, yet still be able to see up into the shadows a little bit in a controlled way. That's where the ring fill does the job perfectly.

I am filling at almost four stops down, which is a tremendous chasm of a lighting ratio by most measures. Example: That's a white piece of paper a few feet behind Asif, going almost black. (That is straight from Lighting 102 - Position | Distance.)

Again, from a newspaper standpoint, it's a big 'ol fail. But, there may be times when I want this tiny peek into the shadows. On an RGB display, it is legible -- just at the edge, really -- but I can dial this in any way I want now, because I have seen the upper and lower limits.

But, the "screw ups" are defining my boundaries. And I could very well decide to go there again, too. It is my choice, depending on the look I want and the medium in which the photo is gonna run.

A stopped watch is right twice a day, and even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. So given that I had missed on both high and low on my ratio, I hopefully would be ready the next time.

Having seen what both "too light" and "too dark" looked like, I felt comfortable that I could dial in the ring fill against an umbrella with a little nuance. Which is what happened the next time I tried the technique.

You can see a full write-up on the contortionist photo, which was a direct offshoot of the test shots above, in this post from earlier this year.

If there is anything that should be stressed, it is (a) that zeroing in on the look you want is a logical process, and (b) you should not expect to happen upon an ideal look right out of the starting gate. It takes testing and experimentation -- and learning from the "close-but-no-cigar" photos is a valuable part of the process.

NEXT: Ring Fill Against Hard Key

_______

UPDATE: For those who asked, the ring flash I was using is a Ray Flash ring flash adapter.

On Assignment: Caleb Jones

Here's the scene: You're at the shore of a beautiful lake on a summer's evening, with live cello music set against a backdrop of twinkling fireflies.

The ground, alas, is covered in goose crap. And that's where you are — on your belly — because that's where the best shooting angle is.

Such was the case for our HCAC shoot of cellist Caleb Jones. Read more »

On Assignment: Trip Jennings

A couple of months ago I got to photograph adventure kayaker Trip Jennings for Canoe & Kayak Magazine.

Given we were fresh out of 80-foot waterfalls for him to navigate in Howard County, we instead chose the shore of relatively somnambulistic Centennial Lake at sunset… Read more »

Ray Flash vs. Orbis vs. AlienBees ABR800 Review, Pt. 2

Last week, we looked at the Orbis and Ray Flash, which pretty much compete head-to-head in the ring flash adapter arena.

This week, we take a closer look at the AlienBees ABR800. Although it is a ringlight with a self-contained studio monobloc flash, it is priced in the neighbor of the other two units -- especially when you consider a standalone flash is not needed to make it work.
__________


The AlienBees ABR-800

For the sake of (relative) brevity, I am going to assume you have already read both last week's post and seen the comparison video at SportsShooter. (Again, they talk about the "Zeus" ring flash, which is a pack-and-head model. But for quality-of-light purposes, the two are identical.)

The ABR800 ($400, here) is a monobloc housed within a ring flash unit. At 320 watt-seconds, it is powerful enough to blast into the sun at typical portrait distances. And it has enough juice to work as appropriate fill in full sun at much greater distances.

If you are shooting in open sun a lot, this is reason enough alone to consider the ABR over the speedlight modifiers. Sadly, Paul Buff (the ABR manufacturer) does not sell worldwide. But as of a few days ago he has just opened up an Australian/Asian distribution point.

Alas, for people who live outside of the US or AU/Asia, there are not any current choices at this power level in this price range. (Hint, hint, flash manufacturers.)

At $400, it is a screaming bargain compared to its studio flash competition. Like most Paul Buff units, it is not excessively heavy duty. I have used mine for the better part of a year, and have had no build quality issues. But neither will the high-impact plastic housing and mount inspire lots of confidence for some.

The ABR comes with a bracket to allow mounting on a light stand, a tripod or just married to the camera for hand-held use. I generally use it on a light stand, and walk it around as my shooting angle changes. As a single unit, mounted to the camera, it is pretty useable hand-held. But it will take a little getting used to, and will make you pine for the day when you thought the Ray Flash setup was unwieldy. (Wuss.)

The unit is an AC/mains power only unit. But Paul Buff does, for $300, sell a Vagabond II battery pack which is powerful and robust enough for extended shooting without AC power. Before jumping on that, consider the less expensive alternative of a couple hundred feet of extension cord for $30 or so at Home Depot.


If the Vagabond could be considered an optional accessory, the 30-inch "Moon Unit" light modifier is a no-brainer and you should just buy it when you get the ABR800. The $60 Moon Unit, which shares it's name with the daughter of singer Frank Zappa, turns your ABR into a gorgeous ring light/soft box.

This combo is really sweet, as you'll see below. But it also means that the ABR can be used as a particularly nice, self-contained beauty dish-style light on it's own. Just stick it on a stand and go to town.

That said, as much as I love the Moon Unit, it could also be classified as a medieval torture device the first few times you assemble it. So much so, in fact, that I was loathe to let a subject watch me assemble it during a shoot. (There is usually some cursing involved.)

I am reminded of a novice VW Beetle driver who pulls up a little too far in front of the gas pump. Rather than try to wrestle it into reverse, he says, "I'll be right back!" and takes a lap around the block.

Don't let it bug you too much. You'll get it. All of the work is worth it. And it is totally worth the $60.



The ABR's Split Personality

One of my favorite things about the ABR is its versatility right out of the box. It comes with a very efficient, 10-inch reflector and a donut diffuser. (Mmmm-hmm-hmm… donut diffuuuuuuser…)

These combos basically give you four different looks and/or beam spreads to the light -- bare, donut, reflector or both.


(Please note that all of these pictures were done in the same conditions and time as the photos from last week, so if you want to compare apples to apples, that should help.)



Bare ABR

Without any modifiers, the ABR is very harsh. It is classic, in-your-face, garish ring flash. I have yet to use it this way, but if you shoot for one of those weekly CityPaper-type publications, it might be right up your alley.

In addition to being harsh, it is relatively inefficient when compared to use with the 10" reflector, as there is little to push that light forward for you.

I haven't given it much use this way yet (ain't my thang) but I think it could look kinda cool in B&W if you blew out the exposure a little. Very over-the-top, brash paparazzi kind of thing maybe.


ABR w/Donut

Snap on the diffuser donut, and ring diameter stays pretty much the same. The wall shadow intensity and glare lessen slightly, but not much. This will also cost you some power.

The diffuser has the effect of sending the light out more evenly in a 180 degree sphere, though, So if you are shooting wide -- whether using the ABR as main or fill -- this will probably be your best configuration.


ABR w/Reflector

If you are going for sheer sun-nuking power, this is your best bet.

With the reflector, the bare tube's power is all sent forward, giving you the absolute most lumens possible. And the diameter of the light is bigger, which gives you a different background shadow and light quality. This is how I use the ABR when filling outside in full sun. (But usually not nuking the sun with the ring as key -- usually, as fill in combo with a separate key light.)


ABR w/Reflector and Donut

In this setup, the ABR-800 most closely resembles the classic, studio ring flash -- smooth, even small light going into a high-efficiency reflector.

For me, this is most commonly used indoors when I want a standard ring look, for key or fill. Even with the donut, this is a very efficient combo.

And again, more often than not this is going to be used as fill for another lighting scheme.


Outside, the ABR separates itself from speedlight-based models. This shot, a promo still for a short film, was done in the shade.

But we still had power to burn in full daylight if we wanted -- we were powered way down on the ABR. This this cranks.

We used the reflector-with-donut setup mentioned above and found some smooth shade. Then we underexposed the shade by about two stops and brought the ring up to full exposure.

We then took that combo down a further stop-and-a-half and used VAL'd SB-800s as key lights. You can see the setup here, courtesy Rehan, who was helping that day.


ABR w/30" Moon Unit

The combo of an ABR with a 30" Moon Unit is far-and-away my favorite look for ring flash -- especially on those occasions when I use it by itself as an on-axis light.

It is a combination ring flash and soft box, and produces a light like nothing I have seen. It wraps and rings, at the same time.

There are caveats, though. First, you will lose some photog/subject interaction, as you are pretty much gonna be hidden behind the light source. It's big.

Also, you cannot get too close with it, to it gets too soft -- just flattish and blah. And the on-axis highlights in the eyes start getting really big. As in, people start looking like aliens. (Hmm, or AlienBees?) But from a working portrait distance, it is sweet.


It also makes a good modifier for a ring-as-fill, too. It does the job in a smooth way, without leaving its own signature. In the BW example at left, I used a 30" Moon Unit as fill and a gridded SB-800 speedlight as a key, from high camera right.

If you have an ABR and have not gotten a Moon Unit, do yourself a favor. It's cheap and it totally transforms the light. And its secondary usefulness as a beauty dish is a great bonus. Just be ready to feel like an idiot the first dozen times you assemble it.
__________


Bored of the Rings

So, there you have it -- a full, direct comparison of three of the most reasonable ring light solutions around. Had enough yet? I'll bet yes.

Even if you do not go for the up-against-the-wall standard ring stuff (not a big fan, either) I hope you will consider one as a way of filling some of your edgier forms of key lighting. They make a lot of things possible that otherwise would not look very good.

And even if you can't spring for one you can always sit down with a movie, some cardboard and some foil tape and roll your own. That's a whole new variable to add to your lighting kit for less than $5, which is pretty hard to beat.

Ray Flash vs. Orbis vs. AlienBees ABR800 Review, Pt. 1

Ring light has, for me, gone from a curiosity to what I consider to be an essential part of my lighting kit. I do not always use it when lighting people, but I always bring it. And I frequently end up using it -- but rarely as a main or only light.

In this first of a two-part series comparing ring flashes, we'll be taking a look at the two direct competitors in the bunch: The Ray Flash and Orbis ring flash adapters. The ABR-800, in all of its different iterations, will get its own post next week.

As most of you already know, the Ray Flash and Orbis are not actually ring flashes but rather are passive light modifiers that convert your existing speedlight into a ring flash. This process has advantages and disadvantages, and there are also relative strengths and weaknesses between the two.

The straight dope, inside.
__________


A Little Background

I have been planning this post for awhile, as one of a pile of "evergreen" type posts that I keep tucked away for a rainy day. In the interim, Dave Honl and Bert Hanashiro over at SportsShooter came up with a video of their own comparing the three.

It's fantastic in that it shows the relative size and ergonomics of each. It sucked (yeah, bros, I'm calling you out) in that it did not really get very deeply into the most important facet: What does the light look from each like in an apples-to-apples comparison?

I kid -- mostly.

But long story short, Dave and Bert's video is a good 4-minute primer on seeing how they each work. So if you have not seen that video yet, I would suggest watching that first. You know, to save me some typin'. (Note: They used a Zeus, which is the ABR800 equivalent in a pack-and-head configuration. Same difference.)

It is here. I'll wait.
__________


Leading Off: The Ray Flash

The Ray Flash mounts to your camera with the flash attached on the hot shoe. The camera, flash and Ray Flash all become one unit.

At first, you'll worry that it puts too much pressure on your shoe-mount flash foot. That has never been a real issue, tho. And it does flex a little and takes some getting used to in general. But the latter is true for any ring flash.



Here is how it mounts, which should be pretty self explanatory.

And if you have trouble holding these guys, the studio versions will only feel clunkier and heavier. This is as light as it gets. There is a physical learning curve to dealing with these, but it is worth the effort.

The Ray Flash is available here (or at many other camera stores around the world) for $199.95.


…followed by: The Orbis

The Orbis Ring Flash Adapter, which also sells for $199.00, is similar to the Ray Flash in that it channels your speedlight's output into a ring of light. But the similarities end there.

The Orbis mounts from under your lens, with the flash stuck up inside it. Normally you would connect it to your camera with an off-camera TTL cord (not included, but something many DSLR shooters already own.)

Your choices until now have been to hand-hold it or to use a light stand, both of which have advantages. But it could not fuse with the camera to make a single unit like the Ray Flash.

That changes with the upcoming release of the Orbis Arm, shown below:


I have played with a production model and have found it to be built like a tank -- a very lightweight tank, thankfully.

It is thick, rigid, powder-coated aluminum. And the two, double-screwed L-brackets are solid as a rock. I would note that, like the Ray Flash, there is some flex involved in the end. But that comes from the Orbis' connection to the flash head, and is in no way related to the Orbis Arm.

I have found it to be adjustable to any camera/lens combo. (I marked mine w/Sharpie to assemble it exactly to the right distance every time.) And it folds into a "spooned L" shape that fits into your bag without taking up any appreciable room. Nice design.


Stepping into The Ring

So, there are the basics for each one. From here on, it is Orbis against Ray Flash -- and may the best ring light win.

Which one will you like best? That depends. Because as similar as they are, they stack up totally differently depending on how you prioritize their features and qualities. So let's get to Round One.


Light Efficiency

Winner: Ray Flash

Here is an apples-to-apples comparison. Everything is the same except for the adapter used to mod the light.

On the left is Orbis. On the right, Ray Flash. Neither are optimal because I left them flat and split the difference on the exposure.

Some tests were, IMO, subjective. This one wasn't. If you are working with closed down apertures, low ISO, or outside, give the Ray Flash a good look.

But even with the increased efficiency, neither of these are overpower-the-sun machines. For that, you'll want an ABR800. You can fill with the speedlight models, but you cannot dominate the sun outdoors in full daylight.

That said, the vast majority of the time you will be working with these kinds of lights in moderate and/or controlled ambient light levels. And they both are more than sufficient for indoor use.

Exposure-wise, it is also worth noting here that both will pass through the TTL information -- it is just your normal flash after all -- and can be used with high-speed focal plane sync for wide aperture work. Gels are also a breeze to use with either. Just gel the flash as you normally would.


Universal Fit

Winner: Orbis

Again, no contest. The Orbis fits most every camera/speedlight combo (except for big honkers like Vivitar 285's.)

The Ray Flash is camera and flash specific. You need a different model number for variances in camera depth (prosumer or pro-sized body) and flash. And brand.

If you shoot with the same model camera(s) and flash(es) all of the time, this is a non-issue. Otherwise it is something to consider.

As a small consolation, I have found that I can mount an SB-800 on a D3 with the Ray Flash model meant for the SB-800 and D300. But it is a little off center on the vertical axis.


Run and Gun

Winner: Ray Flash

First, it comes ready to rock without the added bracket. And even considering the bracket on the Orbis, the Ray Flash is a more compact, self-contained setup.

If you are working in a pack of photogs, the Ray Flash is going to be a little tighter and more compact. This follows through to packability, too. The Ray Flash is thinner and smaller, but inherently "L-shaped". And FWIW, I have found that I can usually work that "L" around a corner somehow in a bag.

But that size efficiency comes back to bite you when it comes to …


Quality of Light

Winner: Orbis

Okay, this is one of those "IMO" types of things, as quality of light is subjective.

But the physics add up. The Orbis, being bigger and less efficient, also appears to be softer and more even in it's light distribution. This is a design point, and Ray Flash just went for more compactness and efficiency.

But being subjective, let's go to the example pics so you can judge for yourself.


Here is the Ray Flash pic. And these are both as apples-to-apples as I could make them. Just one ring light and a gray wall. And Dasha, of course.

It makes since that, since the Ray Flash is smaller it is going to produce a little harder light quality. Just physics. But, you get efficiency and compactness back in return.

It is my opinion that there is also some "lensing" going on in the Ray Flash, which means that you are going to get a bit of vignetting if you shoot wide with it. It is more efficient, in part, because it is somewhat of a "zoomed" ring flash.

This is something that is not very apparent in these two comparison photos, which were shot with a portrait length lens. But you can see it in a wide-angle lens shot, as in this example.


And here's the Orbis, in the same conditions as the shot above.

Right off of the bat I get a little softer shadow on the wall, which is obviously the result of a bigger lighting surface area. But in addition, the light is less "lensed" in the design of the Orbis, so it is also more evenly distributed around the circle. (Again, this will mostly come into play with shorter focal length shots.)

The Orbis is a softer, more even light. And thus, a little more flattering. And as I said, that comes back to bite you on the butt when it comes to lighting efficiency. You choose the factors that are more important to you.


Both are Better as Fill

Actually, let me be more clear: Any ring light is better at fill. So while the Orbis may win out on single-light quality, I do have to say that I rarely use ring lights this way.


Take this picture of Dasha, done at the same time with the Orbis.

In this setup, the Orbis is acting as a fill to a gridded SB-800 coming in from camera right high. This is where I think the Orbis, the Ray Flash and just about any other ring light (or adapter) shines.

Using a ring for what is essentially contrast control is where the fun is, because the ring actually allows you to be more edgy with the design of your key light and take more chances. I see it as being sorta like "layer blending" in Photoshop. Except for you do it in camera.


Because some will ask, here is the setup shot for the photo above. I just popped out of the ring (it was on a stand) and shot from above.

You can see how simple this is, but the result looks very sharp. And, depending on the fill level of the ring and the angle of the key, can give you a thousand different final looks.

The splash of light on the background also hides the effect of the ring light back there if the key light doesn't reach that far back. Which would be the case in this setup, probably.
__________


So there you have my best effort at a comparison between the two main, speedlight ring adapter contenders. It should be noted that there are some others, too, which are essentially cheap knockoffs of one of the above designs.

But a warning to those who would save a few bucks: Just because someone's ring light platic mold might have "fallen off of the truck" does not mean they went out and coughed up the bucks for the best internal optics materials.

In fact, if they were going for low price, they almost certainly did not spend that money. I have had reports of several tests of the various cheaper "Ebay ringflash adapters," and have heard stories so varied on color consistency (um, not) and hideous efficiency (including one report of a six-stop light loss) that I am not even gonna go there.

Look, if you want a super cheap ring light, just DIY your own from one of many different designs here and elsewhere. Save your marginal dollars for another flash.

Next week, get ready to go into full retina burning mode with the 320 watt-second AlienBees ABR 800 monobloc ring flash. We'll be doing comparisons there too -- same conditions as above, so you can compare all three. And with its various included and a la carte attachments, the ABR is a pretty variable light source in its own right.

Comments? Questions? Hit us below.


Next: Ray Flash vs. Orbis vs. ABR800 Pt. 2

A Quick Technique for Edgier Group Shots

When I shot for newspapers, one of the most common visually subpar assignments was the two- or three-person group shot. Nothing against group shots per se, but the small group was usually indicative of a reporter who just couldn't say "no."

The story might really be about Person "A," but the reporter gets strong-armed into this really being a "group effort," (translation: I don't want to be the only one in the photo, blah, blah, blah...)

So the 2-3 person group shot gets a bad rap from the get-go. Which is a shame, really, because most group shots are a good opportunity to play.

Why? Because you typically have nothing to lose since the normal group shot in the paper is a huge yawner to begin with. Hit the jump for a quick tip for carving out quick group light.
__________


Experimenting on Captive Subjects

Let me begin by saying that I especially love one thing about lighting classes: They are attended by a roomful of people who think it is perfectly normal to play around with light for no good reason whatsoever. So naturally, I use them as guinea pigs for lighting ideas that I have in the back of my head.

Lord knows, they are much more cooperative than my kids. Heck, the cat won't even stay in the same room with me at home any more.

I have a project coming up this summer that will call for shooting some edgy looking small group shots, so I want to work a look that has a little more cowbell than the typical big-soft-light group. Nothing wrong with that light -- just a little too been-there-done-that for me at this point.


For the group above (R to L, Damian, Romain and Christian) at the CERN workshop, I started with my fill to place my baseline exposure before even considering the key lighting. The fill is an umbrella right behind the camera -- sort of a poor man's ring flash. A little better than ring, actually, as it is softer and does not leave that "ring signature" on the background wall.

I saw one immediate problem. The fill was not pushing to the back of the scene very well. This was because of the difference in distance between the fill as it hit the subject on the right (a coupla feet away from the camera) to the distance to the back wall (10-15 feet away). Of course the wall is gonna be dark, right?


Solution: Back that flash up. This is where the on-axis umbrella kicks the ring's butt. With a ring flash, your light location relative to the camera is locked down. With the on-axis flash, not so much.

So, by backing up the light we get better penetration of the fill into the back of the scene. Not perfect, but way better than before.

Now, it is just a matter of dialing in the baseline exposure before we accent the faces. This is a piece of cake, and easy to do by eye without a meter. Just light the scene with the umbrella fill, adjust the power until the scene looks good, and then alter either the flash power or the aperture until you see that the shadows -- areas will not be lit by your key(s) -- are where you want them to be. Check your histograms to make sure you are not falling off of the table on your darkest tones. Unless you really want to, of course.


You can set the base fill by dropping your power on the umbrella. But you'd probably want to just close down your aperture in a case like this, to buy yourself some depth of field. I am not gonna carry Romain in the back as tack sharp, but I may as well get him recognizable.

Which brings up an important point. Just for the heck of it, we shot them exactly where they sat in class. Sort of an exercise in lighting angles. If I was shooting them critically, I would want to compress the distance to hold focus on all three.


Now it is just a matter of adding the key lights. Remember, we are in total control of both the quality and the intensity of the fill, as we nailed that stuff down first. What that gives you is both the ability (and the excuse) to get a little atypical with your key lighting. We can go hard, grids, edgy angles -- whatever. Their faces will hold it because we have pre-determined the look and depth of the shadows.

For the key(s) we went with two hard speedlights, one of which sported a grid spot.

As the lead dog, Christian, right, got his own key light. It was gridded to control the beam spread. But I was able to light both Damian and Romain with the same speedlight, which was also bare.

You can more easily get away with hard lighting when you have pre-set your fill. Because while the transition from highlight to shadow will be quick and hard, you have decided exactly how far the drop-off will be. You can play it safe or be increasingly risky, by altering the intensity of your fill light.

You can see a setup shot here, courtesy Mark Howells-Mead of the Swiss Strobists Group. (Check out their meetup schedule if you are local, too.)


Here it is again. I took some liberties with the seams on the back wall (which turned it into a pretty cool backdrop) and removed a sticker.

But what the hell, I am not bound to the newspaper's rules anymore. It's not a completely finished look. But this quick experiment give me enough to go on to where I feel comfy trying it for my project later this summer. I tried a second variation (still honing it) on a single portrait early this month. And I really like the way it is evolving. I will hit that one on a later post.


Test, Test, Test.

It sounds weenie, but it will give you the courage to try new stuff when you really need a different look. And when you get dealt your fourth three-person group shot in a week, a new look is exactly what the doctor ordered.

On Assignment: Tenor Nathan Carlisle

I recently photographed opera singer Nathan Carlisle as part of my long-term project for the Howard County Arts Council.

Nathan is an out-of-towner, and I caught him while he was on a quick swing through HoCo. Because of that, we had to improvise with a quickly selected location.

As I frequently do when in a pinch, I opted to roll the dice and see what the evening's sunset would give us by way of a backdrop. Read more »

Orbis is Going Away. Grab One (for Cheap) While You Can.

(UPDATE: You missed it. The close-out sale is gone. We have now moved onto the price-gouging portion of our show. Don't bite. Much better to buy used on eBay. These things are near indestructible. If it is not visibly damaged, you can feel pretty safe buying used.)
__________

For those of you late to the party, the Orbis Ring Flash Adpater is a passive, add-on light shaping device that turns your speedlight into a ring flash. There are others, but for a slew of reasons the Orbis has long been my favorite of the lot.

And it is about to go away forever. This post is a quick heads-up to grab one while you can—and a pointer to a fantastic deal on the last units as they are closed out.

The Orbis was developed in 2008 as a sophisticated answer to the DIY efforts of the Strobist community. After seeing what was possible with cereal boxes, aluminum foil and gaffer's tape, reader James Madelin wanted to build something better. Meaning nicer looks, better durability, more efficiency, more color correct and with a better quality of light. So that's exactly what he did.

The Orbis is surprisingly complex on the inside in the way it bends light around the donut. It strikes the balance between lighting efficiency vs. evenness (both being very important) just about as well as possible.

Interestingly, of all of the best ring flash adapters, the Orbis was the only one that was never knocked off by the shady Chinese photo gear copiers. It's not that they never thought of it. Lord knows, they put out crap versions of all the others.

My guess? They cut one open, took a look inside and said, "Eff this. Let's knock off the Ray Flash instead."


What it Will Do

The Orbis Ring Flash Adapter is not a flash. It is a passive light mod that mounts onto your existing speedlight. And you'll still need to sync your flash, just like any other off-camera light. For run-and-gun, a coiled off-camera shoe cord will do fine. For use as fill (see below) in a more typical portrait shoot, I just stick mine on a stand and shoot through it, usually triggering it via slave from the key light.

Used alone, on-axis (classic ring light position) it creates that signature glam ring light look as seen above. And because it retains any TTL functions of the speedlight crammed into it, the Orbis is very popular with club/event photographers. Stick on a wideangle lens, work two stops over the ambient in TTL mode, and the results look cool as crap.

And that's fine for event shooters. But I prefer to use mine more in a way inspired by portrait shooters like Greg Heisler and Dan Winters.

In this mode, the Orbis becomes a very sophisticated fill light. You can use it in combo with another off-camera speedlight acting as key light, and it fills in the gaps—to whatever level you choose based on how you power it.

The photo above of poet Linda Joy Burke is a good example. The key light is coming from upper left. I am working well above the ambient with my flash exposure. So Linda's shadow side would be very, very dark without the Orbis that is wrapped around my lens.

The light from the orbis reaches into the shadow side without really adding any footprint, and creates legibility. How much? Your choice. Just dial the power of the ring-fill light up or down as much as you want.

This is a common way for portrait photographers to create exactly the amount of legibility they want in the shadows. Which means you can get more creative and/or edgy with your key if you want. 'Cause the ring is gonna save your ass in the shadows.




Same here with this photo of blogger Sian Meades, done in London. I am in full shade here, and this light is completely being created with two speedlights.

The key light is at hard left, raking across Sian's face. The fill light, in an Orbis, stuck right on my lens, is creating the legibility in the shadows of the key.

The ambient component here is minimal. Without the flashes the photo would be near black. The on-axis Orbis gives me complete control of my shadow density.

(To learn more about lighting either of these two photos, click on either one.)


Now or Never

And the Orbis will soon be gone forever.

They sold over the last seven years for $200, rarely if ever discounted. But the remaining units are being closed out for $129 (w/free shipping in US.) Or you can get it with the hands-free arm for $139 (+$7.40 shipping in US.)

This is a great deal. Because not only will it work on nearly any speedlight (but not bigass Vivitar 285s, sorry) it is built to last you likely for the rest of your shooting life.

Which is a good thing, because you're not gonna be able to replace it.
__________


(UPDATE: The close-out sale is gone. We have now moved onto the price-gouging portion of our show. Don't bite. Much better to buy used on eBay. These things are near indestructible. If it is not visibly damaged, you can feel pretty safe buying used.)

Amazon: Orbis Closeout: $129, free ship US (Gone)

Amazon: Orbis Ring Flash Adapter w/Arm: $139 + $7.40 ship US (Gone)

Lighting 102: Combining Distance and Two Lights

By using a second light to ensure legibility in the shadows, we can place a "floor" on how low the tones will go on our subject. But we can also combine this with the fast falloff of a closely placed key light to get total control of a subject with an inherently tough dynamic range.Read more »

Playing With a New Light: Two Approaches

Thousands of miles apart (and brought together by the magic of Photoshop) readers Tanya Shields and David X. Tejada both made ring flash adapters recently. Then they proceeded to test them out on a nearly identical subject. I found the differences in the way they tested their new lights to be very interesting.

More after the jump.
________________________

Canadian amateur photog Tanya Shields, (left) built her ring light adapter out of common household items. It's a neat approach, as attested to by the fact that I immediately went out and ripped the design off. I built mine in about three hours (one good movie, one so-so movie) from cardboard, parchment paper, foil-backed tape, gaffer's tape and glue.

Total (prorated) cost: Under $5.00.

Yeah, yeah, I know: "What about the cost of your time, David?"

Well, first of all, I like making stuff like this. I also like watching movies. And my accountant will tell you that my time does not in fact appear to be particularly valuable in the monetary sense anyway.

Long-time pro David X. Tejada, (right) whose lighting videos have spent so much time on Strobist that they keep a toothbrush here, made a spiffy new hardware store ring flash. (He shows you how to build it here.)

While the two ring lights are very different in construction, they create fairly similar light sources. What you'll get from these designs is a typical ring flash look, flavored by the fact that the ring will likely be a little hotter on the side closest to the flash.

Some may see the lack of absolute consistency as a hindrance, but I would prefer to think of it as a feature. The ring is going to fill all the way around, with likely about a stop or so difference between the flash side of the ring and the other side.

Since the rings are very portable and hand-holdable, you can choose to put the hot side on the top or bottom by rotating the ring. The hot bottom will give you more of an in-your-face ring shot look, whereas a hot top will give you more of a subtle ring look.

(Incidentally, this is the first time that the terms "David X. Tejada" and "hot bottom" have ever appeared on the same web page.)

Anyway, through some freakish and coincidental force of nature, both Tanya and David both proceeded to test their new ring flashes out on a young man wearing a hoodie. The similarities in light source and test subject matter struck me as interesting, and made me think about two completely different approaches to thinking about the same light source.
________________________


Tanya did exactly what very many of us would have done: Walk around here house shooting anything or anybody who would sit still long enough. Her self portrait up top was done with her ring flash, too.

When I made my first ring flash, I did just about the same thing. The light just puts a whole new spin on just about everything. And you are like a kid in a candy store -- a weirdly 3-D, flattish, wrapped-shadow candy store. You go out and shoot a memory card full of photos that each like all of the other ring flash pix out there.

Nothing wrong with that. You just can't help yourself. It's too fun.


But someone like David, who has been around the block a few times, tends to think of the ring flash a component in a multi-light scheme. This is an approach that many of us can learn from.

Take the example above. David shot his nephew (and fellow Strobist reader) Ian, using a similar ring flash to Tanya's model.

But David is using the flash as part of a triangle lighting setup, with two other speedlights positioned about 20 degrees behind Ian on each side. In doing so, he is completely wrapping Ian with light. Working about two stops above the ambient exposure (as David is) means that Ian is effectively being lit on another plane than the diffuse, grayish ambient.

___________

POP QUIZ:

Q: How would I know David is working about two stops over the ambient?
A: Because on a cloudy day, properly exposed snow would be rendered a couple of stops over medium gray - bordering on white. But David's snow is very close to medium gray. Bringing his subject up with strobe allows him to put the snow at any tone that he wants, from near-white to pitch black.
___________

Okay, back to the photo: Which means that not only can David get this cool separated (dare I say, almost Dave Hill-ish) look, but he could also do the warm gel / cool gel thing, or make that dropped-down ambient any color he wanted.

Mind you, this is not a typical look that will pop up every week in one of David's oil-rig annual reports or brochures. But one day when he needs to amp a boring portrait, will be able to whip this technique out to save the day and look like a hip young Gen-Y shooter in the process. (Don't worry, Dave. You're better lookin' than that Lawrence kid.)

Here's the point: The first thing someone like David T. does with a new light source is to get past the obvious and start to experiment with it as an integral part of a lighting scheme rather then as an end to itself.

To be fair, my first experiences with the ring light were much more similar to Tanya's. But I am learning to think more like David T. as I go forward.

________________________


UPDATE: Australian reader Sam Webster took his new ring adapter into the bathroom to shoot underwater portraits. I thought that was a neat twist, and a cool look for the water-themed series of shots he was doing for a local band.

He did a video of the shoot here. More of his pics are here.

On-Axis Fill: Run-and-Gun Version

These days when I shoot something my workflow is such that I make time to light it. My assignment pace is a little more sane than the two- to three-a-day pace of my days as a newspaper shooter.

Actually, I have had had five- or even six-assignment days on occasion. But thanks to my therapist, I have learned to repress most of those memories. (Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...)

Days like that are a recipe to just say "screw it" and shoot everything available light. Or on-camera bounce flash. But it doesn't have to be that way. And on-camera fill against off-camera flash is one technique that would have been a tremendous help to me as a newspaper shooter on those days from hell.

Keep reading for one way to light when you don't have time to light.


Hey, What's This Flash Bracket Thing on Top of My Camera?

Okay, let's be clear here. I am talking about direct, on-camera flash. And before you jump all over me, think about what on-camera fill flash is designed to do: Tame the shadows.

The problems -- the sameness -- that results from typical "3-D, matrixed-balanced, whizz-bang TTL fill flash" when it is used on-camera for ambient fill is that you are still at the mercy of your available light. The flash is merely there to fix the eye sockets. Or whatever else is going too dark.

But we can take that straight fill concept one step further, and add it to light that we have designed. In this environment, bare, on-camera flash can do some cool things for us.

When I say "on-camera," I am talking about either a shoe flash or a pop-up -- either can do the job. But the key difference is that we can use this flash as a third light source if we have a second flash.

For people who own a pop-up flash camera and a shoe-mount flash, this is a great run-and-gun setup. The on-camera flash gets used the same way a ring light would be used -- while crappy as a main, it is pretty cool as fill.

When I say "third light source," I am including the ambient as one of the first two sources. Which means if you have two shoe-mount flashes (or a single shoe-mount and a pop-up flash) you have a three light setup at your disposal. You just need to design the light so all three sources are working for you in concert.

Let's back up. If you are pushing on-camera fill into directional ambient light, you are doing one of two things: You are either filling angular front light or filling a backlit situation.

With the former, you still have no edge lighting to give you three-dimensional form. With the latter, you are basically key-lighting with direct, on-camera flash. Neither is going to be very interesting, and you will have very little control over your exposure choices, either -- it is either right or wrong.

But when you introduce a second flash (which means a third light source) you get the ability to cross-light and fill at the same time.


Take Me to the River

Let's do a walk-through of the above photo as an example. I was shooting a graduate school project to assess the health of a local stream. The light was what I would formerly consider horrible: Mid-day, high, back-ish overhead sun in a mottled, wooded environment.

If I fill that using only on-camera flash it is gonna look like crap. Well, maybe not crap but certainly not very interesting. No, check that. It'll look like crap.

And if I turn around, stick the sun behind me and fill it on-camera, it looks like every other fill flash photo in the back of every camera brochure in the world.

My goal in this setting is to use the sun as my backlight. Why? Because the exact lighting angle does not matter nearly as much as it would if I used it as a key, and it does not get in peoples' eyes. So no squinting.

Given that I am gonna backlight with sun and key light with off-camera flash, I can choose to set the entire scene at any tone I want. Start at a 250th of a second shutter speed to get a friendly aperture. Then dial that aperture around until I see a nice look for the environment. For me this usually means underexposing the ambient by a stop or so.

Essentially, I am exposing for the highlights, as if I were shooting chrome in the old days. (Back when we had to walk to our assignments, barefoot, in the snow, uphill, both ways.) Except that this time, we are not gonna let the shadows fall off the table into the deep, black abyss.

My back light and full scene established with the manual ambient exposure, I can now think about the key light. Since I am walking around on slippery rocks with a few thou in camera gear dangling from my neck, I am gonna go handheld and light them from the left side. Nothing fancy, and no stands. Camera in right hand, flash in left hand.

I normally shoot manual flash, but I am perfectly willing to use whatever mode works best for me in a given situation. So in this case, I stick the flash on TTL. (WTF? On-camera and TTL?)

Yep. For the flash, anyway.

I am in manual mode on the overall exposure, which means a straight TTL flash will be neutral. If I were underexposing the ambient by one stop in shutter priority (to keep a constant 1/250th of a sec shutter speed) I would juice the TTL flash by one stop to compensate for the overall "-1 stop" exposure compensation. That's just the way the camera settings work.

Now, if I TTL my flash (using, say, an off-camera TTL cord) then any frontal area that is not lit by the flash (or the sun) is gonna be very dark. That includes up under chins and the camera right sides of Charlotte and Chris, my stream diggers du jour.

And the more I saturate that environment the more the flash shadows are gonna drop. This will make the scene look very "flashed" and the overall lighting will look very harsh. But the object here is more legibility, a more natural look and total control of the various tones in the whole photo.

That's where the on-camera fill comes in. By dialing that in fill to, say, minus 2 1/3 stops, I can keep my lighting controlled and see up into my shadows. This gives me total control over three light zones of the photo: Environment/backlight, key-lit areas and fill areas.




Take a look at the lit areas up close in this sectional detail of the photo above. Examples of the fill areas would be the shadow side of Charlotte's face and under Chris's chin. Key light areas would be anything that is lit from camera left.

Environment is controlled by overall exposure. Key is controlled by the relative (+-) TTL setting on the key flash. Fill is controlled by the relative TTL setting on the on-camera flash.

If you look at Chris's neck, you can see both a fill area and a small, very dark, no-flash area that shows you how deep all of the key shadows would be without the on-camera fill. You can also see the no-flash area Charlotte's chin. Imagine all of the key shadows being that dark. That's the difference between on-camera fill and not, when key lighting off camera.


Camera/Flash Settings

Yes, you could do this with manual flash very easily if you are not moving around too much. But this is a good example of when to offload that extra thinking and minute control in exchange for mobility. When you are looking for good footing, you can just find a safe spot, compose and zoom to compose. The camera and flash will get it pretty close. If it misses, adjust the key or fill TTL level to taste.

Two light modifiers are being used here: I have a dome on each flash. This does not affect the light quality (no walls or ceiling to bounce off of) but makes both lights pretty omnidirectional. It helps the on-camera flash put out a signal that the off-camera flash can easily see. At this working distance, I got a 1.000 batting average that way -- no misfires at all.

It does force your flash to put out more of it's power to compensate for the light being eaten by the dome. That will shorten the range in which you can work and/or increase recycle time. But it is offset by the fact that this flash is firing at two and a third stops under TTL, which pretty much negates dome-induced problems.

The key light has a dome and a 1/8 CTO get to warm things up a bit. This is a standard gel for my key light. And the dome means I do not have to concentrate on having good aim with my hand-held key. It lights in all directions.

Pop-up flashes work great as fill for this look, as you can see here, but you'll need to work pretty close to your subject. Also, you'll wanna lose the lens shade as it will throw a shadow from the pop-up (which is so close to the lens axis.) But honestly, if you can get away with a pop-up, the fact that the axis is closer makes it work better for this kind of on-axis fill.

In Nikon-CLS speak, my on-camera flash is the master flash and the handheld flash is the remote. They are both set to fire at TTL setting, with the on-camera fill dialed down 2 1/3 stops. Hopefully, people with other camera brands will interpolate these settings in the comments and post a translation. I no speak de Canon.


Recommended by Lazy Photographers Everywhere

If all of this sounds like a lot of work, it's not. Start at a 250th to get a friendly aperture, dial in the aperture that gives you the best saturated-looking scene. Set your key light at TTL and your on-camera flash at -2 to -3 stops under TTL for this look.

These setting are not set in stone, either. Play around. You can go for a natural look or really amp it. Keep your key light close to straight TTL for some level of "visual anchor" if you want to get weird with it. Drop the ambient a little more. Amp the fill a little more. Better to work against the ambient, too. That is to say, shoot into the light.

You'll get a wide variety of looks, and each will be suitable for different situations. But the important thing is the light-against-light control. And even more so, the ability to light three dimensionally on the run without stands, time or worry.
_________

NOTE:

If you are already using this quickie two-flash technique please hit us in the comments on how you are doing it, and what you are shooting with it.

Annotated BTS: Dan Winters Shoots Jack Nicklaus

I remember seeing this Golf Digest cover in the grocery store two years ago. It jumped out at me from across the aisle as having Dan Winters' name written all over it.

The lighting, the moment, the quietness—the unmistakeable look of his Winters' 4x5, shot on film—a portrait of a master, by a master.

Now, two years later, the Golf Digest BTS pops up on Vimeo. And as it is our policy to pre-empt regular programming whenever an good Annie/Greg/Dan BTS surfaces, the fully annotated video follows below. Read more »

Substituting an Umbrella for a Ring Light

Just a quick-hit post today on when and how to use your umbrella as a faux ring light -- and when it may be even better than the real thing.

Save some bucks, and/or get a completely different look, inside. Read more »