JBPhoto wrote:
Has to be something to do with the distance and the zoom.

LOL.....ya think?

R

Ray Savage wrote:

LOL.....ya think?

R

LOL....ya....that's why I asked.

JBPhoto wrote:
Actually what I want is that trademark pencil-line shadow around the model.
I do test shots on still lifes and get great results, but when I'm shooting models it doesn't always happen.  Has to be something to do with the distance and the zoom.

Show an example of a still life with the shadow you want to reproduce.

JBPhoto  THe ringflash sticks out far enough that I have a problem with vignetting.  SO I have to put more distance betweeen myself and the model, and that's where I'm having trouble getting the same shadows.[/quote wrote:

Not knowing what camera/RF your using...if you adjust the posistion of the RF so that the front of your lens and the front of the RF are flush, you should not get vignetting.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I'm always working like the devil to get rid of that halo shadow. I never want a picture to be about "ringflash." Or "beauty dish" or "octobank" or "cross gels" or any other tricky technique. It should just look and feel cool, and feel "right" and that's it.

The photography is about the subject, the theme, and the message, not the lighting technique.

YEAH! you tell-em

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I'm always working like the devil to get rid of that halo shadow. I never want a picture to be about "ringflash." Or "beauty dish" or "octobank" or "cross gels" or any other tricky technique. It should just look and feel cool, and feel "right" and that's it.

The photography is about the subject, the theme, and the message, not the lighting technique.

I agree. 

However, the OP is still justified to ask the question. 

Who are we to assume:
1. That his work isn't focused on "subject, theme and message".
2. That his tastes should be the same as ours.

???

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
The photography is about the subject, the theme, and the message, not the lighting technique.

But isn't artistic content (subject, theme, message) realized through technique?

Nello Ryan wrote:
But isn't artistic content (subject, theme, message) realized through technique?

IMHO it can be enhanced by technique, but I wouldn't say realized.

and there is more to the look of ring flash than the shadow on the wall.

JBPhoto wrote:
It's a Vivitar ringflash...nothing special.  It mounts to the front of the lens, so there's no way to get it flush with the surface of the lens.

Vivitar, yer probally talking bout that 99$ Vivitar 6000AF , I had one for a while for simple macros and such, I think the bulb/tube in it finally died on me.

Nello Ryan wrote:
Yes, but the OP is justified to ask the question.

Agreed

Nello Ryan wrote:
ps. "realized" vs "enhanced" -splitting philosophical hairs, but the bottom line is the same.

I would totally disagree..

let's say you wanted an image to have the feel of "sadness" maybe a blue gel to slightly cool the image would enhance the feel, if all the other pieces of the puzzle (pose, expression of model, overall lighting) were in place, but the blue gel (a technique) does not in and of itself produce any expression.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I'm always working like the devil to get rid of that halo shadow. I never want a picture to be about "ringflash." Or "beauty dish" or "octobank" or "cross gels" or any other tricky technique. It should just look and feel cool, and feel "right" and that's it.

The photography is about the subject, the theme, and the message, not the lighting technique.

You are so right, Marko - but he needs to learn how to walk before he can fly! 

However, it would be more fun if he would just experiment with the ring flash and see for himself.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JBPhoto wrote:
Actually what I want is that trademark pencil-line shadow around the model.
I do test shots on still lifes and get great results, but when I'm shooting models it doesn't always happen.  Has to be something to do with the distance and the zoom.

I know....damn models....always moving around.  Do they have a spray adhesive for that? :-)

Arash Keshmirian wrote:
Hey JBPhoto. If you want to get hardcore with it, just diagram the shot on paper and you can figure out the optimum spacing of everything to get the shadow size you want.

You'll need:  FOV (rectilinear) =  2 * arctan (frame size/(focal length * 2)) as well as the width of your ring. Just draw it out, it's some easy trig.

Yup, that would do it.

Ever see a show or cartoon where there's a shadow of a huge lion coming down an alley, then a cat actually appears instead? 

Think like that and then create your shot. Of course you'll have to have the 'gods of physical limitations' smiling on you at the time.

bt

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I'm always working like the devil to get rid of that halo shadow. I never want a picture to be about "ringflash." Or "beauty dish" or "octobank" or "cross gels" or any other tricky technique. It should just look and feel cool, and feel "right" and that's it.

The photography is about the subject, the theme, and the message, not the lighting technique.

I agree, I agree..=*^)

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
I'm always working like the devil to get rid of that halo shadow. I never want a picture to be about "ringflash." Or "beauty dish" or "octobank" or "cross gels" or any other tricky technique. It should just look and feel cool, and feel "right" and that's it.

The photography is about the subject, the theme, and the message, not the lighting technique.

Then why used a specialized light like a ringflash if you just want to erase its signature trait?  That's what the different lighting techniques are about... each has its place and purpose.  When you use a hard bulb do u erase the hard shadow from under the nose?  I doubt it.  Or when you're our in the sun, what about the shadow that falls on the ground?  Do you erase the sun?

JBPhoto wrote:
I love the look of ringflash...it's one of those things that I probably use too much.
My questions is...sometimes I have trouble getting the proper shadow around the model.  ANyone know if there is an optimum distance for flash-to-model/model-to-backdrop to get the best shadows?  How about zoom settings?  That has to make a difference as well.
I'm not using a poweful flash...it has a range of about 10 feet.

What are the best shoes?

Your question has no answer without specifics.  Shoot what you like, use a polaroid to find your faves... and REMEMBER IT!!!

parkus photography wrote:
Light falls off at X2,   so,  from the the light source if  f16@2ft  then,  f11@4ft  and  f8@8ft  and f5.6@16ft.   For example,  if your light is f8 @ 8 feet from the model and your background is 16 feet from the light, the light on your background is 5.6.  one stop difference. So you will see a shadow,  Film records a three stop difference, if your main light falls off more than three stops before it hits the background, it will not have any effect.

Actually you are off by a factor of one, it is a two stop difference. Doubling the distance from light source to subject will quarter the light not half it. It's called the inverse square law. Example f8 @ 10' is f4@ 20' .

Dan  Hood  MM/Moderator wrote:
Actually you are off by a factor of one, it is a two stop difference. Doubling the distance from light source to subject will quarter the light not half it. It's called the inverse square law. Example f8 @ 10' is f4@ 20' .

Dan lol, you are correct with the inverse square law,  its been a while since i had to write it out.  You would not by chance be a brookie?

Incident Image wrote:
Then why used a specialized light like a ringflash if you just want to erase its signature trait?

the ringflash has many uses that do not involve leaving a halo.

Christopher Bush wrote:
the ringflash has many uses that do not involve leaving a halo.

I'll agree with that...in fact, the only halo shadow I've liked with my RF are when the model is right up against the wall, and it's so small it's almost un-noticiable. I use mine in high key shot's where the BG is exposed brighter than the model, and no shadow, and also with any un-even BG, (i.e. outdoors), and no shadow. I prefer the other RF traits, like perfectly even lighting, and the catchlight. But I think now we're just talking personal preference.

PS - They make an awsome fill light.

parkus photography wrote:
Dan lol, you are correct with the inverse square law,  its been a while since i had to write it out.  You would not by chance be a brookie?

From looking at your work I figured you knew it. Damn brain cramps.

Why yes I would be a Brookie but not a graduate. Just too much payola. My entire Army college fund and more got dumped there. A teacher hooked me up with an assistants job in NYC working for a guy named Dave Lamb who was a food and still life shooter. When I left that I never went back.