>>2721049
If you're still in the experimenting phase, don't start with a ring flash. They're really, really limited in what they're useful for.

Get a Yongnuo speedlight. You'll have far, far more flexability for your playing around.

>>2721053

I already have a Canon Speedlite EX. I just wanted to have more lighting control and maybe play with filters. I also have the Yongnuo remode add-on to make the Speedlite more portable. I've gotten bored of having only one source of light and thought that maybe, just maybe, having additional light sources that are continous and can be filtered will give more oomph! to my photos.

Do you suppose it could work out like that?

>>2721061
Nah homie...strobes are where it's at. Look up the difference between watts and watt seconds when it comes to photography. Strobes put out a metric shitton more light than anything less than something like a stadium floodlight.

>>2721067

So they're good for outdoors and continous lighting?

>>2721049
These are "okay" for macro, and terrible for literally anything else. if you're planning to use them as real lights, you're flushing your money down the toilet.

>>2721073
>outdoors
Yes, far better than continuous lights
>continuous lighting
My point is that continuous lighting is generally not good at all for photography. The tl:dr is that using continuous means that you've got to make concessions in your other settings (most notably moving from base ISO) in order to get a well exposed image. Beyond that, thanks to the inverse square law, unless you have GIANT continous lights, they also have to be right on top of the subject to be effective.

You have far, far more flexability with strobes. You can go from a soft, low level fill all the way to blowing out all other light sources. If you've the choice, you should only ever choose continous lights for video, never for photography.

>>2721082

I see. I need something I could use outdoors so should I look for like 150w or higher?

>>2721086
>If you've the choice, you should only ever choose continous lights for video, never for photography.


Noted. Thanks for pointing that out. So which ones should I pick for starters? 150w or maybe much higher? A friend suggested using a beauty dish, too.

>>2721087
If you want to be doing ring-flash work outside, you need something that is AT LEAST this, and very preferably, more powerful.

http://www.paulcbuff.com/abr800.php

>>2721088
You skipped over that watt versus watt-second bit earlier.

Homes. Save your money, read the strobist, and maybe try to find some books on using artificial light in photography. I'm not saying this to be mean, but you really haven't the first clue what's going on here. Even small strobes like the low level speedlites are on the order of 10,000x more powerful than say a 200W bulb and they can't blow out most other light sources.

>>2721089
>http://www.paulcbuff.com/abr800.php

That looks pretty sweet but I can't afford that and I'm just experimenting as a total noob with zero knowledge of artificial lighting.

It doesn't need to be ring flash but just enough lighting to reflect onto a subject to fight against a light background

>>2721093

Yes sir.
I am looking at videos regarding strobing right now. Currently watching The Slanted Lens vids on Ytube as we speak.