I picked up a pair of the SmallRig RM 03 macro photography LED lights to help brighten up my macro subjects on these cold, wet, and dark west coast days as we slide into winter. At CAD$70 (US$50) apiece, the price is reasonable, although the build quality leaves a bit to be desired.
Cliff L. wrote:
I picked up a pair of the SmallRig RM 03 macro photography LED lights to help brighten up my macro subjects on these cold, wet, and dark west coast days as we slide into winter. At CAD$70 (US$50) apiece, the price is reasonable, although the build quality leaves a bit to be desired.
Here's one of my first attempts in the front yard:
Nicely done, Cliff! Did you focus stacked this? I just bought a pair of the same light from SmallRig on eBay when it was on sale last week, received them yesterday. Haven't even opened the boxes yet.
e6filmuser wrote:
I'm not a fan of continuous artificial lights for macro. I have some somewhere, never used. They don't freeze movement of subject or camera.
Harold
Can you explain this?
The sun is a continuous light source and with appropriate shutter speed I can freeze movement of a car, jet, bird in flight, etc. Stadium lights are an artificial continuous light source and with appropriate shutter speed you can freeze the movement of a football player, track and field sprinter, etc.
The sun is a continuous light source and with appropriate shutter speed I can freeze movement of a car, jet, bird in flight, etc. Stadium lights are an artificial continuous light source and with appropriate shutter speed you can freeze the movement of a football player, track and field sprinter, etc.
How is macro different?
I think he's talking about very fast-moving subjects that require a very short-duration flash to freeze motion, in cases where the camera's shutter is too slow. Not really anything specifically related to macro, where continuous lighting does help to freeze movement since it's usually brighter than the ambient light.
Cliff L. wrote:
I think he's talking about very fast-moving subjects that require a very short-duration flash to freeze motion, in cases where the camera's shutter is too slow. Not really anything specifically related to macro, where continuous lighting does help to freeze movement since it's usually brighter than the ambient light.
Not just fast-moving objects, any movement at all, plus magnification factors require longer exposures which are all the more liable to motion blur.
e6filmuser wrote:
Not just fast-moving objects, any movement at all, plus magnification factors require longer exposures which are all the more liable to motion blur.
Harold
Interesting that you think less light is better for stopping moving subjects.
I've always found that having more light lets me reduce shutter speeds and thereby reduce motion blur.
I just took two of those lights to Costa Rica. Worked well in the darker under-canopy of the forest. I am not a fan of flash, it just never looks natural. Here is one using the flex-lights mentioned. Cliff, I hope you don't mind me adding a pic to your thread.
Cliff - I don't think I would have taken the image the way you did... but I can appreciate the colors and setup you used to get there. Curious to see more. The 90mm 2.8 is one of my favorite lenses - but since I got my son a 6400 body I haven't seen it (better part of a year now!).
Jeffrey wrote:
I just took two of those lights to Costa Rica. Worked well in the darker under-canopy of the forest. I am not a fan of flash, it just never looks natural. Here is one using the flex-lights mentioned. Cliff, I hope you don't mind me adding a pic to your thread.
Wow.
Agree on the lighting. Never got along with flash (for people, or whatever, even when I shot film).
I have a Godox M1 panel that I quite like - especially because I can adjust the color balance based on what I'm doing...
Jeffrey wrote:
I just took two of those lights to Costa Rica. Worked well in the darker under-canopy of the forest. I am not a fan of flash, it just never looks natural. Here is one using the flex-lights mentioned. Cliff, I hope you don't mind me adding a pic to your thread.
bmike-vt wrote:
Cliff - I don't think I would have taken the image the way you did... but I can appreciate the colors and setup you used to get there. Curious to see more. The 90mm 2.8 is one of my favorite lenses - but since I got my son a 6400 body I haven't seen it (better part of a year now!).
Like I said, it was just a quick experiment. It's been too rainy to get out and do much else lately.
