USING A RING LIGHT: I am the photographer for my Elks Lodge in Santa Barbara, CA. As an avid amateur, volunteer, I shoot photos at most of our events. For themed events like Halloween...

SIMIBILL

I am the photographer for my Elks Lodge in Santa Barbara, CA. As an avid amateur, volunteer, I shoot photos at most of our events.
For themed events like Halloween, Luau, etc., I put up a 6' x 8' cloth backdrop for members and guests to pose in front of as part of my photo shoot. Many times groups of 5 or 6.
I am now using my recently purchased Canon R5 with the RF24-105 F4 lens with no flash per my and member's choice shooting handheld.
My photos are sharp, but some are a half to a full-stop underexposed, which I correct in post-processing.
My thought is to purchase a good quality 18" ring light to gently increase my light to have a more correct exposure and possibly some catchlights in their eyes.

I am asking for your advice and experience.

Your thoughts will be very much appreciated.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

SIMIBILL wrote:

I am the photographer for my Elks Lodge in Santa B... (show quote)

My thought is that you would be better served by a conventional flash that you can also bounce indoors, but there are other options as well. One of the professionals such as ELShapiro could provide expert advice.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

TriX wrote:

My thought is that you would be better served by a conventional flash that you can also bounce indoors, but there are other options as well. One of the professionals such as ELShapiro could provide expert advice.

Quoting TriX above but replying to OP.

I agree with Trix, not sure this is what you want. I have shot with a ring light in a studio and it provides a unique light and also casts a unique shadow if there is a close wall behind the subject. Of course you can use that. Could be good for Halloween? Ring light are sometimes used for head shots or fashion shots. Definitely not for group pics. But of course it couldn't hurt to try it and see how you like it. If you do let us know what you think.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

I too vote for traditional flash unit, either bounced or with diffuser most come with today. I am not a fan of the circular catch light that ring lights do on eyes. Better to light when subject is not looking directly at the lens.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

SIMIBILL wrote:

...
My photos are sharp, but some are a half to a full-stop underexposed, which I correct in post-processing...

If this is "generally the case" then I suggest you set the camera for a half to a full stop brighter exposure.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

SIMIBILL wrote:

I am the photographer for my Elks Lodge in Santa B... (show quote)

You wouldn't have to do the correcting in post if you use a slower SS and or wider aperture! But under is better than over!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

SIMIBILL wrote:

I am the photographer for my Elks Lodge in Santa B... (show quote)

You say that "some" of your shots are underexposed. That tells me that you basically have sufficient light, but that something else is happening.

What is the source of the lighting in the room? Is it fluorescent? Is it modern LED lighting? If either of these, check and see if your R5 has a Flicker Reduction or Flicker Protection function or the equivalent. If so, turn it on. It will synch your shutter to the bright portion of the power cycle and eliminate the variation. My cameras are from a different maker, but since I started using that function, I never have a problem anymore when taking available light photographs.

The flash suggestions you have received are also good. Adding a flash bracket to elevate the flash head would be even better. But flicker reduction might just impress you if it's available.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

larryepage wrote:

You say that "some" of your shots are un... (show quote)

Good suggestion (wish I had mentioned that - I use my anti-flicker setting regularly)

delder Loc: Maryland

Stardust wrote:

I too vote for traditional flash unit, either bounced or with diffuser most come with today. I am not a fan of the circular catch light that ring lights do on eyes. Better to light when subject is not looking directly at the lens.

I agree with the unusual dotted circular catch light I oberve in [Mostly Smartphone] photos obviously taken with LED Ringlights!
It is an unnatural artifact IMHO.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

SIMIBILL wrote:

I am the photographer for my Elks Lodge in Santa B... (show quote)

Ring lights have there place but flat front lighting like that resulting from on camera flash is usually quite unattractive. Others mention unpleasant artifacts of ring lights. There are many lighting solutions some quite simple. In some circumstances, particularly interiors, ambient lighting many cast unattractive shadows. I have LED light panels that provide rather nice lighting. 2-3 placed appropriately can produce nice lighting Mine are fairly small as I use them for studio work on rather small objects but could be used in your situation. These come in all sizes. Balanced supplemental lighting can help.

You have a modern camera with great capabilities. Have you explored the quality of high ISO exposures particularly with post-processing noise reduction. Seems odd you underexposed by 1 stop. Do you use a tripod?

fetzler Loc: North West PA

JD750 wrote:

If this is "generally the case" then I suggest you set the camera for a half to a full stop brighter exposure.

Indeed

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

SIMIBILL

Thank you all for your thoughts

SIMIBILL

Thank you all for your thoughts

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

A ring light is not the best choice for event photograhy- there is no advantage in lighting quality, lighing form, or exposure accuracy.

A simple setup wiht a good Speedlight, either direct or modified, is more practical. if you want better lighting quality, you might consider a second off-camer light.

Erratic exposure has nothing to do, specifically, with the type of flash used. your issues may be in your meter system setting. Try one of the other matrix or combined reading settgs rather than spot reading. If the meter is reading in the wrong area you can get subject failure which causes exposure inaccuracy.