Introduction

Ring flashes, long favored in dental and some scientific photography, have been dismissed as virtually worthless for nature photography. Tim Fitzharris (1997:73) writes that "Aside from its smaller size, a macro ring-flash has no significant advantage over two normal flash units used with macro brackets. At greater distances they provide little flexibility in creating lighting effects, producing mainly frontal lighting with minimal modeling, even with dual tube, variable power flashes." John Shaw, the most famous proponent of single flash lighting for macro nature photography, goes further. "I never use a ring light, which is a flash that encircles the lens and is made for medical photography. It produces a flat, shadowless lighting that comes from above, from below, and from both sides of the subject simultaneously - a lighting not found anywhere in our known universe (1987:89)." Granted, Shaw wrote this passage some years ago and has likely softened his stance against ring flash in recent years with improvements in design (Nikon ads featuring Shaw have shown photos using ring flash).

Nonetheless, there seem to be three major, and assumedly incontrovertible, arguments that would warn nature photographers from using ring flash. First, ring flashes produce flat, shadowless, and uninteresting light. Second, the lighting is unnatural, as are the highlights reflected in the eyes of some animal subjects. Third, and as a result, ring flash offers no advantage over other flash setups. In this short article, I argue that while ring flash certainly is not appropriate for all subjects and conditions (and what setup is?), it can in fact offer advantages in certain situations and can provide quite flexible and interesting lighting for a variety of small subjects.

Quality of Light

Ring flashes, according to popular thinking, are incapable of giving lighting with dramatic impact. The knock here is that ring flash light is shadowless. Yet nature photographers know that the shadowless, diffuse lighting encountered on overcast days often leads to wonderfully illuminated, deeply saturated photos. In other words, shadowless light often is very interesting. Thus, if naturally diffuse lighting is good, why is artificially diffuse lighting bad? One reason, as the Fitzharris quote above alludes to, concerns flash to subject distance. A ring flash used at distances of more than 2 feet or so will have neither the power nor the impact of a bright cloudy sky. Much like the sun at high noon, the light will be small in comparison to the subject, making it a harsh point source. Nonetheless, as with any flash, ring flash can be used as fill to give a bit of pop to a subject and/or taken off camera to give some directional quality to the flash. Just as hot shoe flashes aren't permanently glued to the top of the camera, neither are ring flashes forever stuck to the front of the lens! Further, when used at close distances, especially less than 1 foot, ring flash does indeed provide pleasant and even lighting for small subjects, particularly when shadows produced by angled lighting would obscure the details that interest the photographer in the first place.

One of my favorite uses of ring flash, for instance, is for extreme closeups of orchids and other flowers. In this situation, I often use the Canon MR14 EX ring flash with the Canon 50mm macro and a 25mm extension tube. This gives me extreme magnification with very close working distance, making the flash source quite large in comparison to the subject. While newer ring flashes from the major camera makers allow the photographer to set variable TTL ratios between the two flash tubes, photographers with older models can tape or Velcro different strength neutral density gels to the tubes for a similar effect. Tom Webster, Reasonable Expectations also told me that he uses different colored gels on the tubes of his Canon ML3 ring flash for interesting color effects.

Unnatural Light?

According to many, ring flash produces unnatural light because it comes from more than one direction. As discussed above, however, when used properly ring flash can mimic the natural, diffuse light most pleasing for many nature subjects. Further, using reflectors to fill the shadow side of backlit subjects, an immensely popular and effective technique in wildflower photography, makes for wonderful photos. Does the fact that the lighting in these photos is unnatural detract from their artistic impact and our enjoyment of them? Hardly. The accompanying part of the anti-ring flash argument has to do with the circular highlights reflected in the eyes of some subjects, especially frogs and some insects. Nevertheless, many widely and prominently published amphibian and insect photos were taken with two flashes and show clearly a double highlight. Again, not very natural. Celebrated hummingbird photos commonly show 3 or more catchlights. And any photo of a nocturnal creature taken with a single flash shows a highlight. Did that light emanate from the sun? Was there an especially bright moon?

To sum up, I find this linking of "reality" to artistic value to be a dead end. Flash is artificial lighting designed to illuminate subjects when natural light is insufficient and/or unflattering. Without advocating digital trickery, it seems clear to me that using degree of realness as the basis for assigning artistic value and quality to a photograph confuses the issue. As photographers we make so many conscious choices before the shutter is even clicked to represent our vision of a subject (reflectors, flashes, filters, lenses, films, f-stops, and shutter speeds) that linking the reality criterion to choice of equipment gets us nowhere. If all nature images were taken with unfiltered 50 mm lenses on drab film, I doubt seriously that any of us would be spending time on this forum! Regardless of reality, however, I personally do not like the circular highlights produced by ring flash for amphibians because I feel they are distracting to the viewer. This is a simple matter of taste. You can deal with circular highlights in one of two ways. The easiest is by cloning out the highlight in Photoshop. Another is by moving the ring flash off axis. For my frog photography on a recent trip to Costa Rica, I used a dual flash setup with my Canon ring flash and a Canon 420 EX speedlite on a modified flash bracket. With a bit of experimentation, the standard flash will produce the catchlight in the subject's eye while the ring flash will help to fill subject and background shadows. When it doesn't quite work out, the circular catchlight can still be easily cloned out in Photoshop if so desired. On the other hand, for many insect closeups, I quite like the circular highlights produced by ring flash. It seems to lend animals such as katydids and mantids an even more alien look.

Why Use Ring Flash?

Ring flash is a convenient way to light closeup subjects. Indeed, in certain situations it might be the only way to light your subject. The tiny dink frog pictured in this article, for instance, would have been impossible to take using a single or dual-flash setup. This elusive frog was calling from inside the rolled up new leaf of a Dieffenbachia on a rainy night in a Costa Rican forest. Ring flash allowed me to stick my lens down in the leaf to photograph this male just before he jumped off. This was the first and only time I've been able to find this frog. Ring flash can also allow you to turn a lousy day for photography into an opportunity to focus on the small details. In the rainforests that serve as the set for most of my photography, low light, drizzle, and breezes are typical. Detailed closeups of the abundant small flowers and insects there often is all but impossible using a tripod and natural light, even with fill flash. Ring flash provides a lightweight and convenient way to get some unusual shots. And newer ring flashes allow the photographer to vary power ratios and even to use other flashes as TTL slaves to provide backlighting or sidelighting or to illuminate background foliage. This allows for a host of interesting lighting opportunities with much greater ease of operation than trying to juggle two large hot-shoe type flashes.

Is Ring Flash for You?

If you do a fair amount of closeup photography, ring flash can be a useful tool that will expand your shooting possibilities. Nonetheless, newer models can be expensive. Canon's MR14 EX, for instance, is priced at $449, while Nikon's SB-29 runs $389 at B & H Photo (www.bhphotovideo.com). Older models can be had for about half this price but may not work with newer camera bodies (especially digital SLRs) that use preflash for exposure evaluation. Clearly, a ring flash is not necessary equipment for the general or even the macro shooter. But it can expand your possibilities and can be used like any other flash to give more directional lighting when held off camera. So if you like the small stuff, think about giving ring flash a try - even if you're not really a dentist.

References

Fitzharris, Tim. 1997. The Sierra Club Guide to Close-up Photography in Nature. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Shaw, John. 1987. John Shaw's Closeups in Nature. New York: AMPHOTO.

Image Descriptions:

0301400.jpg (Article Summary Page): The Canon MR14 EX ring flash with Canon 50mm f2.5 compact macro lens and 25 mm extension tube on a Canon Elan 7 body

0301401.jpg: This photo of the spooky countenance of the Dracula Orchid (Dracula sp.) would have been impossible without flash due to a persistent breeze and high magnification. Ring flash made handheld composing easy and provided soft, shadowless lighting on the reproductive parts of the flower. Canon D30, Canon 50mm f2.5 compact macro with 25mm extension tube, Canon MR14 EX ring flash, handheld, 1/160, f25, ISO 100

0301402.jpg: Ring flash is perfectly suited for driving light into recesses, as in this closeup of a Cattleya Orchid. Canon D30, Canon 50mm f2.5 compact macro with 25mm extension tube, Canon MR14 EX ring flash, handheld, 1/160, f25, ISO 100

0301403.jpg: For this photo of a Masked Tree Frog (Smilisca sp.) on Heliconia flowers, I used a dual flash setup with ring flash held to one side and a standard flash to the other. In Photoshop, I cloned out a circular highlight in the frog's eye, leaving the catchlight from the standard flash. Canon D30, Canon 70-200 f4 L zoom w/Nikon 6T diopter, Canon MR14 EX ring flash, Canon 420 EX speedlite w/softbox on homemade bracket, handheld, 1/160, f25, ISO 100

0301404.jpg: This mantis was nervous and therefore required a handheld approach to compose a tight portrait. Ring flash gave even lighting and dramatic circular highlights in the compound eyes. Canon D30, Canon 50mm f2.5 compact macro with 25mm extension tube, Canon MR14 EX ring flash, handheld, 1/160, f25, ISO 100

0301405.jpg: The photo of this tiny (2 cm) Dink Frog (Eleutherodactylus sp.) calling from a new leaf was possible only with ring flash. Canon D30, Canon 50mm f2.5 compact macro Canon MR14 EX ring flash, handheld, 1/160, f25, ISO 100

0301406.jpg: This photo of a small beetle piercing a Heliconia flower to steal nectar shows the even and effective lighting ring flash can provide for small subjects. Canon D30, Canon 50mm f2.5 compact macro with 25mm extension tube, Canon MR14 EX ring flash, handheld, 1/160, f25, ISO 100

Editor's Comment: Let us know what you think! Please email the Editor to let us know your thoughts.

Greg Basco lived in Costa Rica for the past two years while doing field research for his dissertation on the politics of ecotourism. His favorite photographic subjects are the forests of Central America and the plants and animals that inhabit them. Check out his website at Deep Green Photography. Please direct comments and questions regarding this article to Email Greg Basco.