Thanks for the link. It is different, but I'm not sure about it being an upgrade.
The version I built has the advantage of creating a larger overall emitter surface, and I chose to make the light emit very close to the lens. This gives a better fill for macro and close focus work, allowing the light to penetrate further into an orifice, like an open mouth, for instance.
The device in your link has more of a "hole" in the center of the light, which will yield a more distinctive "donut" shaped catch light for portraiture.
Each device has its own properties, and slightly different applications. I may have to build one of these "bowl" lights for myself, to explore the differences.
I'm defenitley going to give this DIY project a try. What would be the cheapest light source I could use? I don't want to spend much on this project, just looking to have some fun with it, and maybe come outwith something I can use somtimes. I think I am going to go the Bundt pan route, seems like it owuld be the most durable.
I'm defenitley going to give this DIY project a try. What would be the cheapest light source I could use? I don't want to spend much on this project, just looking to have some fun with it, and maybe come outwith something I can use somtimes. I think I am going to go the Bundt pan route, seems like it owuld be the most durable.
For me it was pretty cheap because I already had most of the stuff I needed, including an E-TTL II flash and "off camera cord". Those things allowed me to automate the exposure considerably.
If you want to go completely manual exposure, and have a camera with a PC flash connector, a compatible PC flash might have a long enough cord to get you to the right distance for the flash. A few test exposures and you should be good for fixed distances to the subject.
For a larger light source, I've seen projects where they used a single "kitchen ring fluorescent" bulb, modified to allow the lens to be inserted in the middle. That would be pretty cheap, but I think color balance was a problem, so they mostly shot B&W.
If you just need a flash head to experiment with, the canon 155a speed light is as basic as it gets, but has a nice, bright flash and the required PC (household actually) sync connector. They are dirt cheap as well.
For me it was pretty cheap because I already had most of the stuff I needed, including an E-TTL II flash and "off camera cord". Those things allowed me to automate the exposure considerably.
If you want to go completely manual exposure, and have a camera with a PC flash connector, a compatible PC flash might have a long enough cord to get you to the right distance for the flash. A few test exposures and you should be good for fixed distances to the subject.
For a larger light source, I've seen projects where they used a single "kitchen ring fluorescent" bulb, modified to allow the lens to be inserted in the middle. That would be pretty cheap, but I think color balance was a problem, so they mostly shot B&W.
If you were going to be using the same light around the camera a lot couldn't I just do a custom white balance setting based on thislight, then always shoot using that cutsom WB? Also, in the case of the ring lite, that wouldn't be a flash, it would just be a regular light in the same position as a ring flash, correct?
If you were going to be using the same light around the camera a lot couldn't I just do a custom white balance setting based on thislight, then always shoot using that cutsom WB? Also, in the case of the ring lite, that wouldn't be a flash, it would just be a regular light in the same position as a ring flash, correct?
Yes, you could do a custom WB for "any" light source which doesn't vary. Multiple light sources complicate things as do reflective objects around the subject.
Yes, there are ring lights and ring flashes, and they tend to be further distinguished by size and output, which affect their use.
Comments
http://www.businesslights.com/product_info.php?products_id=1432
CRI of 94 and 5300K should make a nice light! Plus they are reasonably priced....
Steve,
I have the images of "my" device at the start of this thread. Did you need more than that?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Must have missed that (I do that sort of thing sometimes, to remind myself that I'm "only human"). I'll take another look:D
For me it was pretty cheap because I already had most of the stuff I needed, including an E-TTL II flash and "off camera cord". Those things allowed me to automate the exposure considerably.
If you want to go completely manual exposure, and have a camera with a PC flash connector, a compatible PC flash might have a long enough cord to get you to the right distance for the flash. A few test exposures and you should be good for fixed distances to the subject.
For a larger light source, I've seen projects where they used a single "kitchen ring fluorescent" bulb, modified to allow the lens to be inserted in the middle. That would be pretty cheap, but I think color balance was a problem, so they mostly shot B&W.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://cgi.ebay.com/Set-of-2-Canon-Speedlight-155A-Flashes-Parts-Repair-AE1_W0QQitemZ220082653724QQihZ012QQcategoryZ15221QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
This could make a twin light, or be the power unit of a ring light....
If you were going to be using the same light around the camera a lot couldn't I just do a custom white balance setting based on thislight, then always shoot using that cutsom WB? Also, in the case of the ring lite, that wouldn't be a flash, it would just be a regular light in the same position as a ring flash, correct?
Here I was looking through this magnifying lamp digging into my finger with tweezers thinking how nice the quality of light is...
It would be a simple thing to take the glass out of one of these and stick your lens throuh it.
Food for thought this fine day....
Yes, you could do a custom WB for "any" light source which doesn't vary. Multiple light sources complicate things as do reflective objects around the subject.
Yes, there are ring lights and ring flashes, and they tend to be further distinguished by size and output, which affect their use.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Those tend to be very low color fidelity (Staples, etc.). Fine for many BW/grayscale images.
There are specialized versions for inspection applications that do better, but I couldn't find any links just now. (Look for a high CRI.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums