Choosing Big Lights: Elinchrom

UPDATE: As I suspected would happen, there is some really good info already developing in the comments from Elinchrom owners. If you are reading email or RSS versions, be sure to check it out. And FWIW, I expect this ongoing comment discussion will be the best part of the post.
__________

One of my main considerations when shopping for more watt-seconds was to be able to work independent of AC power.

In this respect, Elinchrom gets strong consideration in the form of their two battery powered platforms, the Ranger RX and the new Ranger Quadra. A look at a very powerful battery flash, and it's baby brother, inside.
__________


The Ranger RX

The Elinchrom Ranger RX is one of two very popular battery "big flashes" among pros, the other being the Profoto 7B. At 1100 watt-seconds, a Ranger can deliver sunlight-blasting power from its very rugged, splash-resistant battery unit.

I know I ruled out the idea of choosing a flash based just on what other photogs had chosen, but two friends for whom I have a great deal of respect use the Ranger as their primary location big gun.

Joe McNally frequently uses them in conjunction with his SB-900's, with the Ranger as the lead light and the speedlights in supporting roles. He will often place the Ranger outside of a room or building to get that strong ray of (CTO'd) late-afternoon light in a pinch.

And Drew Gardner lights entire woodland scenes with them in broad daylight to transform the areas into magical little glens bathed in impossibly beautiful light.

They have power to burn, and are supported by a wide range of Elinchrom light modifiers. Both the flashes and the light mods have a very good reliability record among the people I know who use them.

They go head-to-head against the Profoto 7B, and the Ranger comes up the winner in one very important category: Watt-seconds per dollar. Which is, of course, a very big draw. Especially for those who plan to use multiple lights and thus will be purchasing multiple units.

You can plug two heads into one pack, with the power distributed either symmetrically or asymmetrically based on the pack model you choose.

One area in which they (formerly) came up short against the Profoto 7B was recycle time. I was speaking with Sports Illustrated photographer Peter Read Miller over dinner one night, and he gave me what I considered to be an excellent reason why he switched from Elinchrom Rangers to Profoto 7B's:

"I just didn't have six seconds of bullshit in me between shots," he said.

Fortunately, as long-time readers of this site well know, I am not bound by such limitations. I have a vitally unlimited supply of bullshit at the ready at any waking moment.

But to Elinchrom's credit, they have since introduced the Ranger RX Speed variant, which gets the recycle down to 3 seconds. That's pretty much a wash vs. the 7B's 2.8 second mark. So make sure you differentiate between the two models if recycle time is important.

In short, the Ranger RX is a big gun with an excellent reputation. In fact, one of its strongest competitors is its new baby brother.


The Ranger Quadra

One of the most interesting battery flash new entries to come along in years is the Elinchrom Ranger Quadra. It is small, cranks out 400 watt-seconds, has built-in Skyport remote power level control, has a daylight balanced 100-watt equivalent, LED modeling light -- and most important -- is incredibly portable.

Even with it's diminutive size, the pack can push two heads. Which means if you are not going with light-sucking softeners (soft boxes, etc.) you can drive two hard, straight heads with a single, small pack in a full-sun environment.

This is perfect for those hard light "key-and-fill against sunlight" portraits that I have been gravitating toward lately.

And the heads themselves are positively tiny -- actually smaller and lighter than an SB-800 -- so they have their own accessory standard. Fortunately, Elinchrom offers an adapter to get you to the (big) Ranger head standard. If you use both, this is obviously a required purchase.

In addition to the size, maybe the best other feature about the units is the LED daylight modeling lights. They are battery-friendly, which is sweet. Generally, batteries and modeling lights do not get a long very well. With traditional bulbs, they have to make them too dim to be very useful, and they still suck juice like crazy.

But the Quadra LEDs are easy on the batts, and have the bonus of being daylight balanced. This is a great feature for using them as continuous lights for video switch-hitters, albeit in low-light situations.

If you want to see more, you can check out Scott Kelby and Mark Astmann in full-blown Ron Popiel Mode in this video walkthru.


Check, Please…

So, what is it gonna set me back to go Elinchrom?

I figure I will need three light sources. If I am overpowering sun, I want to do so with key, fill and some kind of separation light.

And even though both the Ranger RX and the Quadra both have two-head packs, my preference is not to split all that power up. I would probably end up buying three heads and three packs. This would also serve as insurance should a pack go down. Also, all things being equal I would have extended shooting time vs. running three heads off of two packs.

So before modifiers (no small consideration, that) I would be looking at about $5,400.00 for three standard Ranger RX kits or a little more for the fast recycle models. Going with Quadras, the damage would be about $4,500.00.

I was actually a little surprised at how small the difference is. Dollars-for-wattseconds, you would think the big Rangers are the obvious buy. But it also comes down to workflow and how many pounds of gear you want to schlep.

With that thought, I would probably go all Quadras if going Elinchrom. Or maybe one Ranger RX and two Quadras.

Elinchrom offers a huge array of modifiers, so there still would be quite a bit of variability left in the full tab. But I would probably start fairly small and add modifiers as I need them.

So that's the first of three contenders. And not to ignore the built-in brain trust we have around here, if you use Ranger RX's and/or Quadras, please hit us with your thoughts (likes and dislikes) in the comments.
__________


Next up: Profoto

Beers With: Vermeer

With apologies to every art student and teacher, ever, today marks the second in an occasional series of chats with Old Masters.

These guys were the original connoisseurs of light, and that is the framework under which we interview them -- as photographers. Turns out, they've been ripped off by photographers so many times at this point that they are actually cool with it.

Which, by the way, is why the Old Masters merit your study. At least to the point of trying to stay awake during that early morning humanities class.

They are, of course, very difficult to pin down for a chat -- what with hundreds of years of fame and all. But as always, perseverance pays off.
__________


A Little Background

I caught up with Johannes Vermeer at a bar in the Adams Morgan section of Washington, DC, where he was visiting from The Netherlands for a talk and signing at Kramerbooks.

He is Dutch, and known for his portraiture as well as his use of chiaroscuro-style light, which has become the basis for the way many photographers light today. It is against that backdrop that we began our chat.
__________



David Hobby: First of all, just wanted to start out by saying that I am a big fan of your light. Love the light-against-dark internal separation -- that technique saved me many times while working for a newspaper that basically printed on Charmin.

Johannes Vermeer : Glad to help out. I am sure you learned about it in school.


DH: Well, now that you mention it, we didn't, actually.

JV: Yeah, to be honest that is kinda of a sore point with me. I pioneer the lighting style that has become the modern standard, and you-know-who headlines every beginning lighting class.


DH: You mean Rembrandt?

JV: Thank you. My point, exactly. Didn't even have to mention his name, did I?


DH: Well, no, but ...

JV: Seriously, who ever actually uses Rembrandt lighting? Five sources for a headshot? C'mon…


DH: Monte Zucker, kinda.

JV: Name one more.


DH: Umm… okay, you got me.

JV: Don't worry about it. Rembrandt had a great press agent. Understood the power of a brand like nobody else. He even crowdsourced Night Watch. It was a group commission. I hear he is even working on an iPhone app. He's a machine. You can't fight it.


DH: It matters these days.

JV: Always has.


DH: So, Rembrandt gets the headlines. But your light gets used left, right and center. Can we talk about it for a sec?

JV: Sure.



DH: Okay, then. Let's talk about "The Girl with the Pearl Earring."

JV: Just one light -- a soft box up and camera left. Black backdrop, no fill. Very simple.


DH: And yet, it is one of your most famous images.

JV: Just goes to show you, it is not about complexity. It is about the connection between subject and viewer.


DH: They even made a movie about it.

JV: I got to be "technical advisor," which was a hoot. But let's just say I liked the painting better than the movie and leave it at that.


DH: Oh, don't be so modest. I have a clip!

JV: Oh, wonderful…





DH: So, did you at least get to meet Scarlett Johansson?

JV: Oh, yes.


DH: And?

JV: Stunning. Just amazing. Hawt. If I weren't 377 years old…


DH: Yeah, yeah. So tell me more about your light. You like to use window light a lot.

JV: Not as much as you might think. I usually drop a medium or large soft box right outside the window and ape northern light. More control over intensity, fall-off, color, etc.


DH: Makes sense. What strobes do you use?

JV: Profoto 7B's. That way, we are not power dependent. And it's not like we do a million frames, either. I am about the moment. The 7B's work great -- one out, one in.


DH: Whaddya mean?

JV: One outside the window, one inside the room. Soft box key on the subject -- usually upper camera left -- and a second soft box from camera right, in back, on the background.


DH: That simple?

JV: That simple. And that's where the separation comes from, too. Light against dark. That's what chiaroscuro literally means.


DH: Yeah, I know. Italian right?

JV: Right.



DH: So, let's talk about something a little more complex. Tell me about "The Procuress," just above.

JV: Whaddya wanna know?


DH: That one's a little, um, spicy.

JV: I like to mix it up.


DH: Where did you come up with the concept?

JV: It was her idea. She was from Model Mayhem. They all were. She wanted something a little racy. Had tattoos everywhere. We just went heavy on the wardrobe.


DH: So tell me, is Model Mayhem really just a pick-up joint? Or are there serious people there, too?

JV: A lot of folks are just trying to meet women, I think. Except maybe Caravaggio.


DH: Really? Is he strictly professional?

JV: Hardly. He's just not into women. He likes the boys. Young ones.


DH: Oh.

JV: Check his work. You'll see.


DH: Okay, then. How about the light in "Procuress?"

JV: Work it out for yourself.


DH: Alright… Big source camera left. A little up, maybe…

JV: It's a bare head, through a queen-sized bed sheet. Classic McNally. Go on…


DH: Not much coming from camera right -- shadows on the wall in the corner tell that.

JV: Yeah, and?


DH: On-axis fill? About two stops down or so?

JV: Yep. Reveals the detail without leaving a signature. Our eyes can see a greatly expanded tonal range in real life, but when we light an image we have to create it. Not a ring light, though. We used a large umbrella, just behind the camera.


DH: Sweet. You are said to have never sat for a portrait. But that guy on the left, he looks a little familiar.

JV: Does he?


DH: Is it you?

JV: Not sayin'.


DH: Fair enough. But the detail in this image is sweet. How did you shoot it?

JV: PhaseOne P45+, on an old Hassy 500 body.


DH: Looks a little like a Drew Gardner. You know him?

JV: Never met him, but I'm a fan.


DH: I thought you might be. Hey, thanks for your time. I know you have the signing soon, so we should wrap it up. One more thing -- who should I go for next in the series? Any suggestions?

JV: I'm a big fan of Hopper, too.


DH: Dennis?

JV: Edward.


DH: Of course. Can you hook me up?

JV: I'll make a call.


DH: Thanks!
__________


Wrapping Up

Artistic liberties aside, interviewing Vermeer as a photographer might not be such a big stretch. There are many who see his paintings as being a little too accurate. There have been papers which suggest Johannes Vermeer had a little help in the form of a camera obscura.

The geometric accuracy, the simplicity of setting -- even the fact that many of his paintings were (or could have been) painted in the same room -- all point to the use of the crude forefather to the modern camera.
__________

Read More

If you enjoyed this chat, you might want to check out the first in the series, which was with Rembrandt.

Hey, Your Flash is Hawt …

No, not as in the vapid, Paris Hilton sense. But rather the laws-of-thermodynamics sense.

Made-for-photography gels are meant to be used near theatrical light sources. So they can handle the heat. But even still, the front lens of your flash can get very hot with repeated cycling -- especially at higher power settings.

Don't believe me? Try this little trick:

Hold a piece of printer paper right next to the front of your flash and set off just one, full-power pop. Now smell the paper. That would be a burning smell. From just one pop.


Be Cool

When you gel, leave a little space between the flash and the gel for the super-hot air to escape. This helps with cooling.

And if you melt a gel, there is hope. I had not heard of either of two cool fixes before reading this thread, but apparently all is not lost.

And if anyone else has other methods of de-gelling your front flash lens, please share in the comments …
__________

FULL DISCLOSURE: The flash photo up top was not actually discolored by a gel. It was fried by being repeated triggered at 1/2 power from another shooter's nearby PocketWizard.

But it really came in handy as an illustration for a fun little April Fool's post we did back in 2008…

-30-

Mono Monday: Choosing the Right Big Lights

Normally, I try to balance lighting technique, trends, gear and a smattering of general silliness on this site.

Apologies for fact that that Strobist is in somewhat of a gear-oriented spate of posts. There is a reason for that -- namely that I have gotten a little ahead of myself.

A few On Assignment posts are in a holding circle because they were shot with larger light sources. And before getting to those, I wanted to take a look at the process of how to go about choosing a big light system in the first place.

Recently, I revamped my kit after spending 20 years using the same set of well-worn monoblocs. I thought it would be a pretty easy process, but it turns out that there has never been a wider array of "studio" flashes than what is available today.

The purchase merited a lot of thought, and I figured some folks be able to benefit from the experience. More, inside.
__________


My old White Lightning 600's (pictured at left) have given many, many pops of trouble-free service. And last year I augmented them with an ABR800 ring flash, with the idea that a slaved monobloc / ring light would go with just about any system I would want to put together, WL/AlienBees or not.

And this kind of long-term thinking is very important, IMO, when considering a big lights purchase. It's a marriage, really -- or a very expensive fling if you screw it up. So you want to look at long-term costs, value and capabilities of several different systems before choosing.

And speaking of long-term value, I quickly decided that the money I could get for my used WL's would not come close to the value they would have for me as a backup bag. They are pretty fugly at this point. But they work, and I know them well. Which counts for a lot.

So as a backup, an auxiliary bag or as a loaner for colleagues, I would not be selling them.


So. Many. Choices.

I started like a lot people do, clicking around the web like a kid in a candy store.

First, I looked at photographers whose work I admired, and found out what they used. This was quickly discarded as a very poor way to choose a system, because I was clearly working under a completely different set of variables than would be any other photographer. We all shoot -- and light -- differently. What works best for Annie, Joe, Chase, etc., might not work best for me.

So, I decided to take out a sheet of paper and write down some of my considerations and priorities. And that yielded this:


1. AC powered or not, they must be battery capable. Or I would have to build into the budget a good, pure sine wave generator. (This Honda 2000-watt model seems to be the go-to for many shooters.) I have gotten used to being able to shoot without AC (mostly because of the speedlights) and that is not something I was ready to give up.

2. System integration would be very important. There are some very cool, one-off type designs out there. But I wanted to leverage the dollars I spent for the long term, which means that money spent on light modifiers (no small sum) would need to work across a wide range of system flashes if/when I evolved or upgraded.

3. I found myself to be surprisingly variable on price. Rather than just go by absolute dollars, I decided to estimate how much use I would give them over their lifetime and let that dictate the price I was willing to spend. Which is to say that, if needed, a more expensive set of flashes could end up being just as cheap (or cheaper) over the long run than would a less expensive set with a shorter duty cycle.

4. What will they be used for? Primarily, two things: Shooting people in high ambient level environments (i.e., competing with the sun) and lighting bigger scenes. These are the classic duties that speedlights just can't do very well.

5. And speaking of speedlights, I have found that I have a natural preference for monoblocs as compared to pack-and-head systems. I do not like the idea of losing several light sources if a pack goes down. Not that pack-and-heads were out of the question -- many good choices here, in fact. But I would essentially treat a single pack and head as a monobloc equivalent.
__________


So, those were the criteria.

After a lot of initial looking around, web cruising, brochure reading, etc., I came down to three brands which would get each serious consideration. In alphabetical order, they were Elinchrom, Profoto and WL/AlienBees.

In one way or another, they could all fit the bill. But they each also had distinct advantages and disadvantages over the other two systems. So over the next few Mondays we'll be looking at each of these systems in context with the others, in the same way I did when there were real dollars at stake.

Mind you, your variables when looking at purchasing big lights will be different than mine. But I hope my experience will be helpful as a template when you overlay your own set of priorities.

And so as not to restrict this conversation to my own decision process, I certainly encourage your input via the comments as well. As someone who recently went through the process, I can say with certainty that others will benefit from your experiences.

Shedding Light on the Gender Gap

UPDATE: I figured there would be some comments on this one. But still, I had no idea. Kinda like turning on the comment firehose.

Thanks much for all of the helpful feedback, and to those asking, I got the 94% number from multiple polls.
__________

I am getting ready to hop on a plane to Mexico, where I will be teaching for Santa Fe Workshops next week. So if emails go unanswered, or comments are a little slow to moderate, thanks for your patience.

Interesting fact: My SFW class, whom I have already met via email, is 75% female. This is interesting only in that the readership of this site is overwhelmingly male. Ninety-four percent, last I checked.

Which brings up a question that has been bouncing around in my mind for over a year now: Why is that? Why do women comprise only 6% of the site's readership?

And further, why does lighting (in my experience, anyway) tend to be more of a guy thing?

Some thoughts, and a pathetic plea for help, inside.
__________


XX vs. XY

I worked as a newspaper shooter for over 20 years. So as a staffer, stringer or intern, I worked with a total of roughly a hundred other photographers over that time period.

That's not a huge sample, granted. But still, I think back and realize that the male photographers I worked with were more likely to use lighting than were the female photographers. There were exceptions, of course. But in general, the trend held.

And it has certainly borne out looking at not only the readership of this site but the makeup of the previous lighting classes that I have taught. Always more males than females, and usually not even close. Sometimes there would be just one or two women in a class of 50.

I actually mentioned it during a class in Paris. And someone (who was female, for the record) answered that lighting was (ahem) "Too technical for lots of women."

Mind you, I am merely paraphrasing, and not saying that myself. Heck, if Missus Strobist even sees this post, she will beat me senseless with the business end of a weighted boom.

And I don't buy that line of thought anyway. But the fact remains that many guys tend to be more technically oriented photographers. And (in my experience) women tend to care more about the actual photo as compared to the camera model, lens, lighting ratio, etc.

Which, if you think about it, puts us guys at a big disadvantage. Because frankly, you can teach a trained monkey how to light. I even watched Patrick Smith teach himself and he went out and got a real job at an actual paper in Utah and everything.

But seeing subtle pictures, sensitivity, photographer/subject interaction -- all that stuff that I have again and again seen women excel at -- is something most people either have or they don't. Good luck teaching someone how to do that.

So in that sense I am very jealous.

And I do not know if my suppositions are correct, but I do know that only a very small percentage of this site's readers are female. So, I am asking the females, why is that the case and what can be done about it?

I mean, we could certainly just shoot a decent number of the male readers and that would bring the percentages into line. But surely there is a less messy alternative.

Interesting fact number two: There is a small-but-growing "Lady Strobists Group" on Flickr, which certainly says something about this. Although, being a guy, what it says or does not say is probably beyond me.


So, You Tell Me

Please share your thoughts. Is this just another stupid boys' club? Is lighting and being female (even a little bit) counter-intuitive in some way?

Asking the women mostly, of course. In fact, if you are a married guy you'd probably better run any prospective comment past your wife (before the fact) just to be safe.

And if you are female and feel out of place in a guy-dominated group -- as the main Strobist Flickr Group can sometimes be -- please consider joining the Lady Strobists group.

IMO, there is absolutely no reason that lighting need be gender-weighted. Assuming it even is. And please take my word for it when I say that I am not consciously trying to do anything to present lighting as a Guy Thing on this blog.

It's just another in a long list of areas where I apparently can't attract women…

This Finn O'Hara Shoot Probably will not Fit in the Conference Room.

[UPDATE]: Finn answered a couple of Q's from the comments. First, no Zamboni because of all of the wires. It just was not practical. Nor were other more manual methods of smoothing the ice.

And those of you who suspected another concurrent shoot were dead on. Video was happening on the other side of the black drapes. So, for all of the insane production, it was actually a pretty economical allocation of resources -- all things considered.
__________

Holy crap.

I am at a loss for words after looking at the scale of production involved in this Finn O'Hara shoot of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

You see work by guys like this all of the time, but you rarely get a good look behind the scenes. And granted, he did end up shooting 53 (correction, 35) people. So when you amortize out a "civic works"-size set, it actually starts to make sense.

But still. Just … wow.

[UPATE, 10/4/10 -- Check out Finn's blog for lots more pics from this shoot.]
__________


-30-

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.