Deezie wrote:
I think "Commercial photographer" might be a more appropriate term to differentiate between pro photographers who use Profoto, Bron, Dynalite (which are stocked in rental departments), and those who use Alien Bees. This is not to say that commercial photographers don't use AB's - I did, for awhile, for smaller jobs - but AB's will not be an option until they're in rental houses.

Terrific thread, by the way. Many innovations come from photographers with practical ideas about what would work best for them in the field or studio.

Commercial photographers, in my world, actually own studios and don't go to rental houses. My estimate is that, in the US, 50%+ of commercial photographers us AB or WL, 25% use older Photogenics (from the era when they actually existed as a viable company) and the rest use a variety ranging from Chinese lights to Elinchrom. This sort of info has appeared in the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) listings on several occasions. To suggest PPA members aren't pros is like suggesting a Honda isn't a real car.

The people you describe, again in my opinion, are the very few ultra high end fashion photographers in NYC and Miami and LA that bounce around the globe from assignment to assignment and charge every thing to the client. These aren't our customers and probably never will be. If someone else has a better source of who uses what, let's hear it.

i don't disagree with any of the disadvantages that have been pointed out with respect to lumedyne...one of the reasons i put it out there was that so many people don't even realize they exist- and they are a system which is built around light weight packs and heads..... if you look at them, you realize their strenghts and shortcomings: and some of the shortcomings/issues that would need to be addressed by anyone contemplating entering this market segment.

i think that it is also important to note that smaller has not necessarily meant and may not mean less expensive going forward.

Regarding the Ranger system that has been mentioned here, I was just on the Elinchrome site and saw the weight of the flash head is 2.4 kg. Seems a lot, are there other heads? How does that compare with say, the new Alien Bees?

Also notice the modelling light is only 50watts. That is very restrictive.

I think it is important to note that with new technology, monolights are getting smaller and more efficient. If the simplified battery power source for the new AB Max units works as advertised, it might well be a great "light" portable system.

Rick

This Comet 400 watt battery operated system looks interesting. I was not familiar with it before:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/333403-REG/Comet_LB_411_KT_LB_400_System_Kit.html


Light pack, light heads: 2.6 + 1.2 pounds, total 3.8 pounds. NiMH battery

I assume from their marketing - or lack thereof - that Dynalite now owns Comet?

Paul Buff wrote:
This sort of info has appeared in the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) listings on several occasions. To suggest PPA members aren't pros is like suggesting a Honda isn't a real car.


I would like to see a poll with the APA and ASMP, since these are commercial photographers organizations. PPA is not for commercial photographers, it's for portrait photographers, your main market.

mmurph wrote:
This Comet 400 watt battery operated system looks interesting. I was not familiar with it before:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/333403-REG/Comet_LB_411_KT_LB_400_System_Kit.html


Interesting. At least this is a single-outlet pack, which keeps the cost down. However, there's no modeling light at all, and while the head can do 1200 w/s, the pack only allows 400 w/s. Obviously, that keeps the cost down, but they might have been wise to bump it to 600 w/s at a slightly higher price. It also has a non-replacable flash tube. That's a big mistake IMO.

The other big questions with this unit are what modifiers can be used, and what radio remote system is available. (I'm really sold on the Skyport / cyber-commander type of dingus.)
---------

The above caveats aside, this looks better than a comparably-priced Q-flash system. But for $300 more you can have the low-end Ranger RX system, which does 1100 w/s,has a 200 watt modelling light, and has a replacable tube. Plus, it takes Elinchrom modifiers & has Elinchroms proven track record behind it. (color consistency, etc)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=392226&is=REG&addedTroughType=search#specifications

Of course, the RX has it's own limitation, being 1100 w/s with only a 7-step range. There won't be much fine-tuning at low power. Can you swap-in a lower-power head with the RX pack?

Why can't digital systems have more output variability? What is the limitation on that? Who wouldn't want an 1100 w/s head if it could run at 50 w/s and be bumped 10 w/s per click? Obviously this can't be done, but why not?

Brent Ward wrote:
Paul Buff wrote:
This sort of info has appeared in the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) listings on several occasions. To suggest PPA members aren't pros is like suggesting a Honda isn't a real car.


I would like to see a poll with the APA and ASMP, since these are commercial photographers organizations. PPA is not for commercial photographers, it's for portrait photographers, your main market.
You think portrait photographers aren't professionals? They own studios and equipment and make their living with photography. Some are great, some aren't. Same with other organizations like APA and ASMP. Associations don't a pro make. Too much pigeonholing here for me.

mmurph wrote:
This Comet 400 watt battery operated system looks interesting. I was not familiar with it before:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/333403-REG/Comet_LB_411_KT_LB_400_System_Kit.html


Light pack, light heads: 2.6 + 1.2 pounds, total 3.8 pounds. NiMH battery

I assume from their marketing - or lack thereof - that Dynalite now owns Comet?
From my understanding, Comet bought DynaLite, then Dynalite bought it back.

Cableaddict,

The Ranger RX offers more power variability than virtually anything else currently out there. 1100w/s, down to 6w/s (using the "B" port), or down to 17w/s if you get the less popular (and cheaper) symmetrical Ranger. To be honest, I find 17w/s way too much when shooting indoors with fast lenses. (Need some less efficent light modifiers!)

Also, the "2.4kg" head is real, but includes the weight of the thick cable. The Ranger heads are certainly larger than they need to be.

shoebox9 wrote:
Cableaddict,

The Ranger RX offers more power variability than virtually anything else currently out there. 1100w/s, down to 6w/s (using the "B" port), or down to 17w/s if you get the less popular (and cheaper) symmetrical Ranger. .

I'm not talking about range. I'm talking about resolution. There's only 7 settings between lowest and highest power.

Cableaddict wrote:
shoebox9 wrote:
Cableaddict,

The Ranger RX offers more power variability than virtually anything else currently out there. 1100w/s, down to 6w/s (using the "B" port), or down to 17w/s if you get the less popular (and cheaper) symmetrical Ranger. .

I'm not talking about range. I'm talking about resolution. There's only 7 settings between lowest and highest power.


The power range goes from 1.5 to 7.5 at 0.1 increments, which is 60.

Yep, more settings between full and lowest power than anything? else currently available with a built in battery.

It's nice. Just big and very heavy! Give us 600w/s with a small head and a much smaller battery pack (with on-the-fly interchangable batteries).

Paul Buff wrote: Commercial photographers, in my world, actually own studios and don't go to rental houses. My estimate is that, in the US, 50%+ of commercial photographers us AB or WL, 25% use older Photogenics (from the era when they actually existed as a viable company) and the rest use a variety ranging from Chinese lights to Elinchrom. This sort of info has appeared in the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) listings on several occasions. To suggest PPA members aren't pros is like suggesting a Honda isn't a real car... To suggest PPA members aren't pros is like suggesting a Honda isn't a real car.


Your estimate is inaccurate. I've art directed a dozen photoshoots this year, all using commercial photographers, all of them used rental gear and third-party studios or locations. These shoots have been for lifestyle brands and entertainment, including fashion, alcohol and jewelry. All but one of the shoots, to the best of my recollection, utilized Profoto gear. There was a product shooter who worked with Dynalite, which were also rentals.

And Paul, if you look at my thread, I not only never mentioned PPA members, I never stated anything about anyone being or not being a pro. I stated that there's a distinction between a pro photographer (weddings, portraits, sports, news, etc) and commercial photographers, who work primarily for brands, advertising, publications, etc. and that you will rarely see commercial photographers working with their own lights, except on personal or smaller projects.

I've done shoots in Italy and England this year, but it would have been impractical to drag my gear with me - so I rented Profoto, which was easily available. I've actually used Alien Bees on a couple of commercial jobs, Victoria's Secret being one of them - but that was for a small pick-up shot that had minimal lighting demands. I think your latest improvements to the Bees are a big step in making them more practical for commercial photographers, but I don't see any of us giving up pack & heads anytime soon. The power, build and ease of use are just the right combination that makes them so attractive.

I look forward to seeing what you do with the Einstein line.

Paul Buff wrote:
Brent Ward wrote:
Paul Buff wrote:
This sort of info has appeared in the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) listings on several occasions. To suggest PPA members aren't pros is like suggesting a Honda isn't a real car.


I would like to see a poll with the APA and ASMP, since these are commercial photographers organizations. PPA is not for commercial photographers, it's for portrait photographers, your main market.
You think portrait photographers aren't professionals? They own studios and equipment and make their living with photography. Some are great, some aren't. Same with other organizations like APA and ASMP. Associations don't a pro make. Too much pigeonholing here for me.

Did I ever say portrait photographers weren't pros? NO.

I said they are not commercial photographers.

In response to you saying that a poll in PPA proves 50% of commercial photographers use your lights. If your going to put words in my mouth do a better job.

Deezie wrote:
Paul Buff wrote: Commercial photographers, in my world, actually own studios and don't go to rental houses. My estimate is that, in the US, 50%+ of commercial photographers us AB or WL, 25% use older Photogenics (from the era when they actually existed as a viable company) and the rest use a variety ranging from Chinese lights to Elinchrom. This sort of info has appeared in the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) listings on several occasions. To suggest PPA members aren't pros is like suggesting a Honda isn't a real car... To suggest PPA members aren't pros is like suggesting a Honda isn't a real car.


Your estimate is inaccurate. I've art directed a dozen photoshoots this year, all using commercial photographers, all of them used rental gear and third-party studios or locations. These shoots have been for lifestyle brands and entertainment, including fashion, alcohol and jewelry. All but one of the shoots, to the best of my recollection, utilized Profoto gear. There was a product shooter who worked with Dynalite, which were also rentals.

And Paul, if you look at my thread, I not only never mentioned PPA members, I never stated anything about anyone being or not being a pro. I stated that there's a distinction between a pro photographer (weddings, portraits, sports, news, etc) and commercial photographers, who work primarily for brands, advertising, publications, etc. and that you will rarely see commercial photographers working with their own lights, except on personal or smaller projects.

I've done shoots in Italy and England this year, but it would have been impractical to drag my gear with me - so I rented Profoto, which was easily available. I've actually used Alien Bees on a couple of commercial jobs, Victoria's Secret being one of them - but that was for a small pick-up shot that had minimal lighting demands. I think your latest improvements to the Bees are a big step in making them more practical for commercial photographers, but I don't see any of us giving up pack & heads anytime soon. The power, build and ease of use are just the right combination that makes them so attractive.

I look forward to seeing what you do with the Einstein line.
This is all about words and pigeon holes. I'm sure if you ask 100 portrait photographers, or more correctly, owner/operators of "photo studios", or their customers if they are "commercial photographers", you would get 99 yes answers. Further, I think you would find many of them who also do some advertising photography and other jobs besides portraits.

These are the people we primarily serve, and these are the primary customers for studio flash.

I believe the more proper term for the photographers you describe would be "advertising photographers", and they are definitely a minority in the grand scheme of studio flash equipment.

Certainly, if you travel the globe and your clients pay you big bucks and your expenses, you are going to rent the very best equipment and studios you can. But only a few fall into that category.

Moreover, I don't honestly think I've assisted on a real commercial shoot in the last 3-5 years where we used lights that the photographer owned. It's all been rental lighting, probably 50% of the time it's been rental cameras as well. Mostly Profoto lights, some Speedo, some hotlights like Kinos and Arri fresnels. A number of shoots used lighting sub-rented from a rental studio (in NYC it's places like Milk, Bathhouse, Splashlight, Industria, ShootDigital, Pier 59, etc.), otherwise it was rented from the major houses like Splashlight, TREC, Adorama, 5th and Sunset, Milk Locations. The only shoots I've been on, outside of my own, where we used the photographer's lighting gear were model tests, small lookbook shoots, spec editorials.

If that many commercial photographers are using ABs/WLs I just don't understand why I haven't walked into a single shoot where I've seen them.

The idea that, by and large, commercial photographers own their studios and don't rent lighting is absolutely ludicrous. I'd love to see what the major studios and rental houses and shoot producers of the world think of that statement. It may be more common in an area like Nashville where there aren't any alternatives because there's no significant rental studio or gear market...but given that more commercial work in the US is done in NYC, LA and Chicago than anywhere else, I think that those markets are a little more telling in how commercial work is done.

el_hoppy wrote:
Cableaddict wrote:
shoebox9 wrote:
Cableaddict,

The Ranger RX offers more power variability than virtually anything else currently out there. 1100w/s, down to 6w/s (using the "B" port), or down to 17w/s if you get the less popular (and cheaper) symmetrical Ranger. .

I'm not talking about range. I'm talking about resolution. There's only 7 settings between lowest and highest power.


The power range goes from 1.5 to 7.5 at 0.1 increments, which is 60.

That would be great. In fact, then I'd buy them. However, it says "The power range selection is 7 f-stops." right in the product description. The more expensive package has 8.5 Are they referring to something else?

That's a 7 f-stop range, not 7 steps in the range. Like a lens might have a 7-stop range but it still goes in 1/3rd-stop increments.

What Simon says....

but unlike a lens, the Ranger can go up in 0.1 of a f-stop. To get the full 8.5 f-stops you need the Ranger Speed AS and switch from the A to B plug for the lowest end of the range.

I would like to make a suggestion to Paul.

Hi, Paul,

If an engineering issue can't be resolved in house, you shall/can out source it to over come the roadblock. There is a such web site that lets companies post any challenge engineering problems and people from a talent pool may come out a solution. You shall be able find this site by Googling. I hope you can come out something to complete with Elinchrom Ranger Quadra soon.

I was thinking having three AB Max lights with a square wave inverter for each. Am I right in thinking that the square wave inverters that will work with the lights are fairly small and portable? I believe it will eliminate a lot of the long cables that you can often need on location which run back to a battery pack or generator. Does anyone have an opinion on this as a location setup?

I think you are talking about advertising and fashion photography but commercial photography, in my opinion also consists of a much larger range, from architectural to industrial where photographers generally own their gear. I could see the new AB lights very useful because of their versatility.

Rick

shatterkiss wrote:
Moreover, I don't honestly think I've assisted on a real commercial shoot in the last 3-5 years where we used lights that the photographer owned. It's all been rental lighting, probably 50% of the time it's been rental cameras as well. Mostly Profoto lights, some Speedo, some hotlights like Kinos and Arri fresnels. A number of shoots used lighting sub-rented from a rental studio (in NYC it's places like Milk, Bathhouse, Splashlight, Industria, ShootDigital, Pier 59, etc.), otherwise it was rented from the major houses like Splashlight, TREC, Adorama, 5th and Sunset, Milk Locations. The only shoots I've been on, outside of my own, where we used the photographer's lighting gear were model tests, small lookbook shoots, spec editorials.

If that many commercial photographers are using ABs/WLs I just don't understand why I haven't walked into a single shoot where I've seen them.

The idea that, by and large, commercial photographers own their studios and don't rent lighting is absolutely ludicrous. I'd love to see what the major studios and rental houses and shoot producers of the world think of that statement. It may be more common in an area like Nashville where there aren't any alternatives because there's no significant rental studio or gear market...but given that more commercial work in the US is done in NYC, LA and Chicago than anywhere else, I think that those markets are a little more telling in how commercial work is done.

shatterkiss wrote:
Moreover, I don't honestly think I've assisted on a real commercial shoot in the last 3-5 years where we used lights that the photographer owned. It's all been rental lighting, probably 50% of the time it's been rental cameras as well. Mostly Profoto lights, some Speedo, some hotlights like Kinos and Arri fresnels. A number of shoots used lighting sub-rented from a rental studio (in NYC it's places like Milk, Bathhouse, Splashlight, Industria, ShootDigital, Pier 59, etc.), otherwise it was rented from the major houses like Splashlight, TREC, Adorama, 5th and Sunset, Milk Locations. The only shoots I've been on, outside of my own, where we used the photographer's lighting gear were model tests, small lookbook shoots, spec editorials.

If that many commercial photographers are using ABs/WLs I just don't understand why I haven't walked into a single shoot where I've seen them.

The idea that, by and large, commercial photographers own their studios and don't rent lighting is absolutely ludicrous. I'd love to see what the major studios and rental houses and shoot producers of the world think of that statement. It may be more common in an area like Nashville where there aren't any alternatives because there's no significant rental studio or gear market...but given that more commercial work in the US is done in NYC, LA and Chicago than anywhere else, I think that those markets are a little more telling in how commercial work is done.
I would suggest, across America, there are a hundred commercial/professional photo studios that own their equipment for each rental studio.

Paul Buff wrote:
I would suggest, across America, there are a hundred commercial/professional photo studios that own their equipment for each rental studio.

By that definition, you might be right. But I agree with the previous posters' semantic division between commercial and professional photographers, which is why I only spoke to commercial photographers. I think they're a very different breed with very different needs and their businesses operate in a very different way than someone who might be running a storefront portrait studio. Clearly, if one photographer is selling prints for $20/each and another is licensing image usages for thousands (or tens-of-thousands or hundreds-of-thousands) of dollars, their needs are going to be different.

I've seen hi end portrait studios who's lighting set ups haven't changed in years. They don't touch the lights, ever...

I don't know of any commercial shooters that can get away with that.