guys, can you elaborate on the ?

This seems to be something that has come in under the radar for me - I have no idea what you are referring to.

BTW, I'm talking about depth of lighting rather than depth of field.
In the absence of stereoscopic vision, 2D images appear more '3 dimensional' when given some directional lighting with a carefully thought out shadow.

The crab spider above benefits from this and the flower beneath also has very obvious shape as defined by the shadow.

By convention, illustrators cast a shadow from an imaginary light over their left shoulder.

I'm sure Mike will indeed make this work for him and I'm really looking forward to his serious attempts, but I can't see any benefits for interesting macro shots, indeed the shot above would have been impossible with a ring flash getting in the way.

In another post some months ago I suggested that ring flashes do exactly what an illustrator would go to some lengths to avoid - flat, even lighting.
Hopefully, this image will help members avoid becoming obsessed with having something which, in most cases, will make their shots worse (IMO).
This was taken with a normal flash (could have been any 99p wonder from eBay), a piece of paper (reflector) and a rubber band. Everything manual.

Now I'm really curious -
goggalee, can you explain what it is that has convinced you? Are you needing to represent something dispassionately, for a publication or something?

Mike is more than capable of producing first-class macro images with depth and 'atmosphere'. But to me, these are nothing more than sharp and clear.
OK for a scientific book but a bit flat for that wow factor.

I bet it is a bit cumbersome for those interesting angles too. Mike?

Actually, I do like the doggy eye.

I don't agree!
I think you have done much better Mike.
These seem harsh, unnatural and featureless.

I'm dying to see what the appeal is with these ring thingies.
Looking forward to seeing your further experiments tho'

Hey amin, weren't you going to ring me?

P.S. Nice and sharp tho' Mike

Mike, you have an astonishing ability with long lenses.
If I did that, it would be a fuzzy blob of green.

Fabulous shot Simon.
Personally, I don't agree about the BW. Although it would look very powerful, I love the blues and oranges together.

I was going to ask about the perspective as the verticals appear to diverge.
I quite like this odd perspective, but it does appear to be wrong.

Beautiful entries so far.
Already a great competition.

hmm... insurance - one of my pet hates.
Forgive my naivity
If I am not taking any studio lights or mains equipment, just wandering around with my camera, am I any more likely than anyone else to harm someone?
Surely they can sue who they like but unless someone was negligent or caused the accident the case will be thrown out?

I mean, I am much more likely to cause someone harm in my everyday life than when carefully going around taking pictures at a wedding? Why do I suddenly become more liable than anyone else? Does the law not take common sense into account?