Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Here is a Maxwell Render simulation comparing a ring light with on-camera flash. The shadows are quite different, as I expected, but I'm surprised the quality of light on the skin itself seems so similar.

http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/ ... _vs_o.html

Anyway, if you are curious about this photographic lighting issue, I tried a Maxwell-simulated test. Results above.

If you do the same test with the model turned closer to the 3/4 angle or something, i'm sure you'll notice quite a bit of difference between the two. I think right now your test setup is a bit flawed, in the sense that it is not really a setup that shows the benefits of a ring flash very well.

Also, you should add some glossiness to your model to simulate slightly glossy, greasy skin (you know just natural grease on skin, not like gross, not showered in forever grease) That too should show the ring light's advantages better as well. You should get much hotter and sharp highlights with the flash and softer highlights with the ringlight, once you get some of that gloss on there.

Also, not to mention the fact that your texture is completely smooth, as opposed to having pores, wrinkles, bumps and imperfections. A ring light will soften those dramatically compared to a camera flash.

The skin is somewhat glossy. It has an additive layer at roughness 60 on top of a roughness 99 skin tone base. You think it should be glossier?

What will a 3/4 pose get me?

I can see what you mean the benefits for skin pores.

The difference in lighting is there, but so are the similarities. However both a frontfacing standard flash and a ringflash will illuminate the subject from the front so you will unavoidably get similar lighting on your subject. See how you get a dropshadow on the backplane from your standard flash and a ambient occlusion type shadow on your ringflash rendering. Instead of aiming the standard flash directly on your subject, bounce the flashlight off a wall or off a ceiling, this will give you a better lighting and not so sharp and direct as it is now.
Btw, a ringflash is most often used for macrophotography to eliminate the shadows and get a clean subject, not really for portraits like this.

/ Max

3/4 pose.

glossier skin.

even smaller bulb on the flash.

I can see where it would be more forgiving to pores, but it is surprisingly similar in other ways. I expected a radically different sheen pattern.

Maximus3D wrote:The difference in lighting is there, but so are the similarities. However both a frontfacing standard flash and a ringflash will illuminate the subject from the front so you will unavoidably get similar lighting on your subject. See how you get a dropshadow on the backplane from your standard flash and a ambient occlusion type shadow on your ringflash rendering. Instead of aiming the standard flash directly on your subject, bounce the flashlight off a wall or off a ceiling, this will give you a better lighting and not so sharp and direct as it is now.
Btw, a ringflash is most often used for macrophotography to eliminate the shadows and get a clean subject, not really for portraits like this.

/ Max

I realize an on camera flash bounced off a wall or ceiling gives a softer light.

I suppose I am comparing the Terry Richardson use of the on-camera flash

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=te ... a=N&tab=wi

to the ringlight fashion portrait

this new test is a good one! I think it shows off the differences very well!

it's almost like instant retouching! You can see the highlights turn more into these smooth silky highlights, and the shadaows around the jaw, and nose has been softened to a much more pleasing look.

It evens out the overall lighting alot as well. I definitely like the ring light result better, if I had to pick between the two.


You're right that it's not going to be a HUGE difference, but it is definitely a more refined look.


@Maximus3d- Ring lights are actually used ALOT for shooting models!! here are some samples of the results from using a ring flash for model photography. It shows lighting setups too, which is nice.
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=784

itsallgoode9 wrote: You're right that it's not going to be a HUGE difference, but it is definitely a more refined look.

Yes. Interesting.

I feel I understand that light modifier a little better now.

<3 Maxwell