Using LED ring lights (not flash) for macro insects

Like you I was worried about flash and bought a led ring, after a short while I succumbed and bought a flash, macro results have never been better, and flash is very easy to setup

try camera and flash on manual, f8, 1/160, iso 100, take a pic and increase/decrease flash power till your happy

there are lots of you tubes on it, try micael widell

Antique Eruption wrote:

Hello, I have been using a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro on my Fuji system a little while, and would like to bring a bit more light to bear on the subjects I photograph. I'm CLUELESS about flash and don't want to go through that learning curve at this stage in my photography life. Also, whilst I am now using Topaz DeNoise for other nature photography, I am yet to use it with macro. I will do that as I start getting back out into the garden for some macro opportunities, but I'd like to explore ring LED lighting that can attach to the front filter mount so that I have a little less noise to clean up in the first place. However, I read that a constant light source can introduce softness. What experience do the macroistas here have of this phenomenon?

Yep.

I haven't seen very many commercial LED ringlights that can put out enough power to get up into the shutter speed range needed for the sharpest macro shots.

Remember, pictures are taken by energy (in watt-seconds). That's power x duration. If your small ringlight puts out 2 watts (common in ringlights that run of AA batteries) and you shoot at 1/250 sec, you've got a whole 0.008 watt-seconds of energy. A single "speed light" style flash typically can pop 80 watt-seconds into a full power flash, and that's with a duration of about 1/800 second. So, nearly 4x the blur-killing speed, and 10,000 times more energy to let you use smaller apertures and lower ISOs.

Even if you used a very slow, blurry 1/10 second with the ringlight, that's only 0.2 watt-seconds. The flash would still give you 400 times more energy.

Seriously, the "learning curve" to learn how to use a real flash and get sharp, well lit, controlled results is a lot shorter than the learning curve to pile hack after hack trying to get sharp shots from insufficient light.

Now, there are devices called "hybrid" LED ringlights that can light the LEDs steadily with 1-2 watts, but can also store a few watt-seconds of energy in a capacitor and dump that into the LED ring in a short pulse to get a higher energy dose for your exposure. Some do around 4 watt-seconds, which is still substantial at macro distances.

But you still need to learn flash if you want to use a hybrid flash.

Would the IBIS in my camera resolve that issue

Not with your lens. For IBIS to work properly, it needs to know the amount the sensor needs to shift with a given shift of lens angle or position. In order to make that happen, the camera needs exact information on focus distance and lens rear node to sensor distance. Modern autofocus macro lenses provide that information to your camera, but your old Vivitar can't.

If you want actual help from a stabilization system, you really need to look at the Fuji 60mm f/2.4 or 80mm f/2.8.

(likewise solid technique) or is the reported problem more to do with the use of a steady light? Again, I am not seeking to use flash.

Why not? It's an optimal solution to your problem, and it won't scare the bugs before you're ready to shoot. Like I said: you've got to learn something, either flash or "heroic" levels of camera holding and LED lighting.

Antique Eruption wrote:

Richard Dutton wrote:

I have a Neewer one somewhere. Its called a flash but it just a continuous LED ring light with the option on switching it on/off from the flash trigger.

The problem I had was that it actually back lit into the lens mount on some lenses and caused flare. Needs a baffle. I used to use it just as an off camera light source.

Another problem was that the light output wasnt very high. I struggled to get 10ev on a meter on close subjects with poor natursl lighting..

Will be interesting to see if anyone has used these successfully.

I think the LED panels are better being bigger. For a compact solution I do use a flash on a bracket with diffusers - in my case with a Nikon TTL cable - then another flash unit stood off and used as a slave to the main one.

Havent used any lights recently - just tried to use available light at wider apertures and stacking - not too successful - flash is easier.

I was looking at the godox light72 (if I remember the name correctly). Thought it might give me a stop or two to play with. I appreciate folk saying flash is easier, but I'm an absolute beginner in that regard.

So what? Say it takes 10 hours to go from zero to results acceptable with flash, but it takes 50 hours to go from where you are now with continuous light to getting acceptable results from an LED ring light.

Which is the more efficient path?

Antique Eruption wrote:

jim mij wrote:

Like you I was worried about flash and bought a led ring, after a short while I succumbed and bought a flash, macro results have never been better, and flash is very easy to setup

try camera and flash on manual, f8, 1/160, iso 100, take a pic and increase/decrease flash power till your happy

there are lots of you tubes on it, try micael widell

With the best will in the world, not the answer I wanted to hear 😂. But you've been there and I need to accept that. Thank you.

Watch this, twenty mins is better than spending any money or making any decisions

https://youtu.be/YTl9-VWe1xg

Antique Eruption wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Antique Eruption wrote:

Hello, I have been using a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro on my Fuji system a little while, and would like to bring a bit more light to bear on the subjects I photograph. I'm CLUELESS about flash and don't want to go through that learning curve at this stage in my photography life. Also, whilst I am now using Topaz DeNoise for other nature photography, I am yet to use it with macro. I will do that as I start getting back out into the garden for some macro opportunities, but I'd like to explore ring LED lighting that can attach to the front filter mount so that I have a little less noise to clean up in the first place. However, I read that a constant light source can introduce softness. What experience do the macroistas here have of this phenomenon?

Yep.

I haven't seen very many commercial LED ringlights that can put out enough power to get up into the shutter speed range needed for the sharpest macro shots.

Remember, pictures are taken by energy (in watt-seconds). That's power x duration. If your small ringlight puts out 2 watts (common in ringlights that run of AA batteries) and you shoot at 1/250 sec, you've got a whole 0.008 watt-seconds of energy. A single "speed light" style flash typically can pop 80 watt-seconds into a full power flash, and that's with a duration of about 1/800 second. So, nearly 4x the blur-killing speed, and 10,000 times more energy to let you use smaller apertures and lower ISOs.

Even if you used a very slow, blurry 1/10 second with the ringlight, that's only 0.2 watt-seconds. The flash would still give you 400 times more energy.

Seriously, the "learning curve" to learn how to use a real flash and get sharp, well lit, controlled results is a lot shorter than the learning curve to pile hack after hack trying to get sharp shots from insufficient light.

Now, there are devices called "hybrid" LED ringlights that can light the LEDs steadily with 1-2 watts, but can also store a few watt-seconds of energy in a capacitor and dump that into the LED ring in a short pulse to get a higher energy dose for your exposure. Some do around 4 watt-seconds, which is still substantial at macro distances.

But you still need to learn flash if you want to use a hybrid flash.

Would the IBIS in my camera resolve that issue

Not with your lens. For IBIS to work properly, it needs to know the amount the sensor needs to shift with a given shift of lens angle or position. In order to make that happen, the camera needs exact information on focus distance and lens rear node to sensor distance. Modern autofocus macro lenses provide that information to your camera, but your old Vivitar can't.

If you want actual help from a stabilization system, you really need to look at the Fuji 60mm f/2.4 or 80mm f/2.8.

(likewise solid technique) or is the reported problem more to do with the use of a steady light? Again, I am not seeking to use flash.

Why not? It's an optimal solution to your problem, and it won't scare the bugs before you're ready to shoot. Like I said: you've got to learn something, either flash or "heroic" levels of camera holding and LED lighting.

Thank you Joseph. The truth hurts. I'll have a good think on this.

You're welcome, AE.

Look at it this way: it's better to experience the hurt now than after you've purchased equipment, put in hours, and gotten frustrated. This way, the only thing hurting is your preconceptions.

Antique Eruption wrote:

jim mij wrote:

Antique Eruption wrote:

jim mij wrote:

Like you I was worried about flash and bought a led ring, after a short while I succumbed and bought a flash, macro results have never been better, and flash is very easy to setup

try camera and flash on manual, f8, 1/160, iso 100, take a pic and increase/decrease flash power till your happy

there are lots of you tubes on it, try micael widell

With the best will in the world, not the answer I wanted to hear 😂. But you've been there and I need to accept that. Thank you.

Watch this, twenty mins is better than spending any money or making any decisions

https://youtu.be/YTl9-VWe1xg

I'll do that, thanks. One thing I've never grasped with flash is the relatively low shutter speeds. If I'm extended to 1:1, I thought I'd have to increase shutter speed to counteract blur from my own movement. 1/160 sounds slow, particularly for moving crittters (or even static but moving limbs, etc.).

If you're at a low ISO and an aperture of say f/8 or f/11 there's not much exposure from the 1/160 sec of ambient light. The flash duration is much faster, like 1/2,000 sec at 1/4 power. Flashes freeze motion: they're an essential part of high speed photography.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Antique Eruption wrote:

jim mij wrote:

Antique Eruption wrote:

jim mij wrote:

Like you I was worried about flash and bought a led ring, after a short while I succumbed and bought a flash, macro results have never been better, and flash is very easy to setup

try camera and flash on manual, f8, 1/160, iso 100, take a pic and increase/decrease flash power till your happy

there are lots of you tubes on it, try micael widell

With the best will in the world, not the answer I wanted to hear 😂. But you've been there and I need to accept that. Thank you.

Watch this, twenty mins is better than spending any money or making any decisions

https://youtu.be/YTl9-VWe1xg

I'll do that, thanks. One thing I've never grasped with flash is the relatively low shutter speeds. If I'm extended to 1:1, I thought I'd have to increase shutter speed to counteract blur from my own movement. 1/160 sounds slow, particularly for moving crittters (or even static but moving limbs, etc.).

If you're at a low ISO and an aperture of say f/8 or f/11 there's not much exposure from the 1/160 sec of ambient light. The flash duration is much faster, like 1/2,000 sec at 1/4 power. Flashes freeze motion: they're an essential part of high speed photography.

+ 1 of flash "freezing" movement (and shake), i just wish i'd bought a flash gun years and years ago

I was trying to get something small / second hand but they sent me a m43 instead of a canon one, i eventually bought a small godox 350

Antique Eruption wrote:

One thing I've never grasped with flash is the relatively low shutter speeds. ...

Whenever you take an image with flash, you're combining two different exposures from two different sources of illumination: the ambient (all the existing light already in the scene) and the flash.

Ambient exposure is controlled by iso, aperture, and shutter speed (this you know).

But flash exposure is controlled by iso, aperture, power, and subject-to-flash distance.

If you are at or below sync speed, then shutter speed does not affect the flash exposure because the flash burst duration is much much shorter than your shutter speed (typically ranging from 1/1000s (full power) to 1/40,000 (1/128 power) on a full-sized speedlight.

And because you have these differences in control between your two light sources, you can balance the ambient against the flash however you want.

If you adjust your exposure so that flash is the primary source of illumination but there's still some ambient exposure, you can get images where the subject is "frozen" by the flash, while showing motion trails (slow sync flash). And when the flash fires (at the beginning or end of the exposure) changes the direction of the motion trails.

But if you can overpower the ambient light with your flash to the point of "killing" the ambient (i.e., all the exposure is only from the flash and none of it from the exposure; typically by underexposing the ambient around -5EV to -6EV so you get a black frame if the flash doesn't fire) then you can freeze motion with just the flash, which, remember can go from 1/1000s-1/40,000s (which is why flash is used for high-speed photography, for things like bullets going through apples :-). And with the light at macro distances, killing the ambient is more easily doable.

But this is also the main reason strobes are preferred over LEDs for this: you need a lot more light output to be at +5EV (32x) over the ambient.  Petapixel did a side-by-side of Godox's LED video lights and their strobes, at max. power and found that one of the full-sized speedlights metered at +1EV, while the LR150  bi-color 150 LED ringlight was at -5.3EV.  So just getting, say, a $65 TT600 is going to offer you something like +6EV (64x) more power/light to play with for this type of thing.  Even a  $200 1000 LED panel still only comes in at -2EV.  And a speedlight? Is the smallest and lowest powered strobe you can get.

LEDs are great if you'res shooting video and need continuous light, or you're doing tabletop product photography in a studio and need to see tiny angular adjustments as you're working and don't need much power to freeze motion or fill flash against sunlight.   But strobes will always give you a lot more light for your money.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Flashes freeze motion...

...if you kill the ambient. Slow sync flash with motion trails can still happen if there's any ambient in the exposure.

Antique Eruption wrote:

... I think I'm getting this a bit more now. Thank you.

You're welcome! I highly recommend the following two websites for wrapping your head around flash:

• Neil van Nierkerk's Tangents websites: Flash Photography Techniques
• David Hobby's Strobist Lighting 101

Yes, it's more complex than simple ambient-only exposure. But it's not rocket science or brain surgery, either. And learning flash can open up whole new worlds. IMHO, flash ismore transformative to your photography than getting a new lens.