el_hoppy wrote:
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.


Thanks.

I'm pretty excited, then, about the RX.

I only wish I could have an RX system with a cyber-sync controller.

Paul, you stlll readin' this thread?

Cableaddict wrote:
el_hoppy wrote:
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.


Thanks.

I'm pretty excited, then, about the RX.

I only wish I could have an RX system with a cyber-sync controller.

Paul, you stlll readin' this thread?

The skyport RX's allow for quick adjustment of power, and when you add in the USB dongle to a pc or mac....it only gets better.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over the lack of compatibility with the cybersync....the skyport RX system is wonderful.

Cableaddict wrote:
I only wish I could have an RX system with a cyber-sync controller.
?

What would CyberSync give you that Skyport can't?

Carmen Miranda wrote:
Cableaddict wrote:
I only wish I could have an RX system with a cyber-sync controller.
?

What would CyberSync give you that Skyport can't?

Nothing without Cyber Commander except less cost. Everything with Cyber Commander and Buff lights.

Cableaddict wrote:
el_hoppy wrote:
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.


Thanks.

I'm pretty excited, then, about the RX.

I only wish I could have an RX system with a cyber-sync controller.

Paul, you stlll readin' this thread?

Cyber Commander can't control Elinchrom lights, and vice versa.

shatterkiss wrote:
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.
This may be true, but it doesn't change the ratio of one to the other. We serve what we refer to as "the 80%" whatever that actual percentage is. Fact is, Honda sells way more cars than Rolls, so should Honda try to compete with Rolls for another couple of percent in sales?

Perhaps since the Rolls equivalents in the lighting industry have begun to try to compete with the Honda equivalents speaks volumes.

Paul Buff wrote:
Cableaddict wrote:
el_hoppy wrote:
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.


Thanks.

I'm pretty excited, then, about the RX.

I only wish I could have an RX system with a cyber-sync controller.

Paul, you stlll readin' this thread?

Cyber Commander can't control Elinchrom lights, and vice versa.


Yes, we know this. You missed the point.

Cableaddict,

Paul isn't in the business of making controlers for other people's lights. If you want the beauty of a wireless controler with a built in flash meter, then buy ABMax or wait for the Einstien series. Otherwise, by a Ranger and be happy.

Paul Buff wrote:
shatterkiss wrote:
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.
This may be true, but it doesn't change the ratio of one to the other. We serve what we refer to as "the 80%" whatever that actual percentage is. Fact is, Honda sells way more cars than Rolls, so should Honda try to compete with Rolls for another couple of percent in sales?

Perhaps since the Rolls equivalents in the lighting industry have begun to try to compete with the Honda equivalents speaks volumes.


Much easier for the top to drop down and compete with the bottom, than the bottom raising up to compete with the top.

Brent Ward wrote:
Paul Buff wrote:
shatterkiss wrote:
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.
This may be true, but it doesn't change the ratio of one to the other. We serve what we refer to as "the 80%" whatever that actual percentage is. Fact is, Honda sells way more cars than Rolls, so should Honda try to compete with Rolls for another couple of percent in sales?

Perhaps since the Rolls equivalents in the lighting industry have begun to try to compete with the Honda equivalents speaks volumes.


Much easier for the top to drop down and compete with the bottom, than the bottom raising up to compete with the top.
Not as easy as you might think. Designing building and marketing a successful mass appeal product is every bit as hard as doing limited-market expensive products. Often, a high end company will throw a low end product together without thinking out the marketplace or the required techniques and come up with a real loser. Cost effective engineering is every bit as difficult as high tech engineering - often harder.

It's sort of like when seasoned studio musicians would come into my studio and try to do rock and roll songs.

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



Just like the top 10% is different from the other 90% of photo work that is produced, NY and LA are different from the rest of the country. Here in LA many photographers don't own anything, everything is rented. Until the early 90s lots of people owned studios but then the real estate spiked, I know 3 guys who lost their buildings to dot coms that eventually went bust. In Detroit however which used to do a huge amount of photography for the car industry, everybody had to own 2 of everything. And their own giant studio. Probably in the rest of the country most people own their lights and cameras and studio too. To use LA and NY as a barometer of how things work on the rest of the world is a mistake.

Paul Buff wrote:
It's sort of like when seasoned studio musicians would come into my studio and try to do rock and roll songs.

Thats not really a fair analogy Paul. Some of the best musicians around today are in rock bands. Maybe if you'd like to compare instruments it would work better for you. I'm sure for every $2000 guitar sold there are 5 $200 guitars sold. Sure a Fender Squire will fill the needs of the majority but you should never discount the people who buy a Les Paul because they need something better and know how to use it.

Carlton Beener wrote:
Paul Buff wrote:
It's sort of like when seasoned studio musicians would come into my studio and try to do rock and roll songs.

Thats not really a fair analogy Paul. Some of the best musicians around today are in rock bands. Maybe if you'd like to compare instruments it would work better for you. I'm sure for every $2000 guitar sold there are 5 $200 guitars sold. Sure a Fender Squire will fill the needs of the majority but you should never discount the people who buy a Les Paul because they need something better and know how to use it.

Geez are we off topic. Ever hear a symphony orchestra try to play Wipe Out? Regarding $2000 guitars to $200 guitars, try more like 100 to 1.

The point was, do makers of $2000 guitars know how to compete with the $200 ones? Usually no more than vice versa.

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.

An interesting question might be to ask these commercial photogs what they own for personal use (they can't always rent stuff to practice with?). I suspect a lot of the rental stuff is being able to bill a client for the gear and studio rental. If someone paid me for a big multi $K commercial/advertising shoot, I'd choose Profoto and those massive parabolics as well...and a bunch of helpers to haul the heavy gear around

Any word on the ABMax shipping date?
Is the first week of July still on track??

We are shooting everyday so i am ready for the Max for everyday use right away.

Paul Buff wrote:

Geez are we off topic. Ever hear a symphony orchestra try to play Wipe Out?


So true! Reminds me of those Frank Zappa videos.

Classical musicians scare me.

kenyee wrote:
An interesting question might be to ask these commercial photogs what they own for personal use (they can't always rent stuff to practice with?). I suspect a lot of the rental stuff is being able to bill a client for the gear and studio rental. If someone paid me for a big multi $K commercial/advertising shoot, I'd choose Profoto and those massive parabolics as well...and a bunch of helpers to haul the heavy gear around

I can only speak to the ones I know personally or have read some kind of specific information on. For the most part, the only ones to own a significant amount of lighting gear are the ones who either maintain a small personal studio (small enough for test shoots or portraiture, too small for most client work). They tend to own the same stuff they rent, just less of it: mostly Profoto, stuff like the Pro7B or lesser Acute2 line.

As for renting for practice shoots...I think some of you don't understand how easy it is to rent in a major market. I can make one 5-minute phone call and have a 3-head Profoto kit dropped on my doorstep a couple of hours later, probably cost me $75/day plus a delivery fee. If you aren't maintaining your own studio and client jobs pay for rental gear, what incentive is there to own more than a couple of heads?

shatterkiss wrote:I can make one 5-minute phone call and have a 3-head Profoto kit dropped on my doorstep a couple of hours later, probably cost me $75/day plus a delivery fee.

Wow. That's nice service. At the rental houses in Boston, you have to pick things up but the lighting kits are a little more expensive (roughly $120/day for a similar kit).
I was all excited about renting a broncolor parabolic to play with for a day until I found out it was $200/day

I definitely agree there's no point in owning if the client absorbs the rental costs, and rental costs aren't high enough for clients to balk at the costs...
.

kenyee wrote:
I definitely agree there's no point in owning if the client absorbs the rental costs, and rental costs aren't high enough for clients to balk at the costs...

Go back and look at the photos and video in this thread:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/786229

This is the kind of thing that some of us are referring to when we say "commercial photography"...the idea that it's done for a commercial client for a commercial application and the budget that follows. Gear rental costs don't raise an eyebrow until you start talking about renting cranes, 1,000-amp genny trucks, etc...partly because they're going to be dwarfed by the prop, labor and wardrobe expenses. A high-end makeup artist, with assistant, for a shoot on that scale could cost $1,500+/day. The retouching could have easily billed at $500/hour. Compared to labor fees like that, which aren't considered unreasonable, no one bats an eyelash at $500/day for production RVs or $2,500 for crafts services...or a $3,500 rental gear package.

And lest you say, "well, that's an atypical shoot"...I've done work on shoots for other brands like La Perla and Prada and Helmut Lang that followed the same kind of scope. Things like building entire apartment sets on soundstages rather than shooting a location because they need the apartment to be "just so".

For me, personally, this is why drawing the distinction between "professional photographer" and "commercial photographer" is so important - the gulf between the day-to-day reality and needs of the two can be enormous.

And before the finger-pointing starts again - I'm not a commercial photographer, much as I aspire to being one.

Micky Bill wrote:
Just like the top 10% is different from the other 90% of photo work that is produced, NY and LA are different from the rest of the country. Here in LA many photographers don't own anything, everything is rented. Until the early 90s lots of people owned studios but then the real estate spiked, I know 3 guys who lost their buildings to dot coms that eventually went bust. In Detroit however which used to do a huge amount of photography for the car industry, everybody had to own 2 of everything. And their own giant studio. Probably in the rest of the country most people own their lights and cameras and studio too. To use LA and NY as a barometer of how things work on the rest of the world is a mistake.

I don't disagree that NY and LA (and I'd include Chicago) are different than the rest of the country, but I'd say that those three photographic markets produce 80% of the US's commercial photography. That's where the majority of the ad agencies are, with those agencies preferring to hire photographers who are local to them regardless of where the shoots take place. In the commercial world, the agencies service the clients, photographers and everyone else service the agencies, rental houses and suppliers service photographers...so everyone clusters. It's not that these cities are the barometer for the country, it's that these cities own the vast majority of the country's commercial work. When I pop into AdBase and run a geographic search on commercial art directors and buyers, I get 100x more hits in NYC or LA or Chicago than I do in Detroit, Minneapolis, Tulsa, Atlanta, Seattle, Salt Lake City. With 100x the potential clients, it reasons that you'd have just as large a disparity in photographers and the businesses that make money from and support photographers.

Detroit is a bad example, I think...yeah, JWT and Ogilvy and others had agency outposts there, but they only existed to service Ford and Chrysler and the like. I know: a creative shop I worked for years ago had an office in Royal Oak (which I staffed up) just to service our Ford business. Other than the autos, how much commercial photography business existed in Detroit? It makes sense that there isn't a support infrastructure there, given how few photographers and how limited the industry is there. Even Miami has a limited rental scene: a couple of rental houses, mostly that double as the only large studios in town (Splashlight, for instance). They have a limited commercial industry, traditionally the winter months of the fashion industry, so there's limited revenue potential for support businesses.

Again, this all changes if we stop talking solely about commercial photography and broaden the discussion to other areas of professional photography, like portrait studios or wedding photographers. But given that each business's needs are so different, practically the only thing they have in common is the word "photography".

First, props to Paul Buff for engaging some of the amateur businessmen on this forum.
Taking photographs, even large commercial jobs, is nothing like running a manufacturing business.
Suggestions, of course, but some of the commentary is just rude and argumentative. I'm not sure why Paul keeps coming back, but if they're talking about you, you must be doing something right. Maybe Paul's market is the little guy like me and a lot of my friends who own his lights, but have never made a penny from them.

robin4est wrote:
First, props to Paul Buff for engaging some of the amateur businessmen on this forum.
Taking photographs, even large commercial jobs, is nothing like running a manufacturing business.
Suggestions, of course, but some of the commentary is just rude and argumentative. I'm not sure why Paul keeps coming back, but if they're talking about you, you must be doing something right. Maybe Paul's market is the little guy like me and a lot of my friends who own his lights, but have never made a penny from them.
Thanks for the support. I've been doing this for a long time - 50 years in total in the recording studio business, pro audio manufacturing - yes, as pro as it gets, and studio lighting for 28 years. I pat my own back for never losing my balance and always remembering who brung me to the dance - the real people.

These forums get pretty ridiculous, with a lot of people talking about things they don't really know about. The fact is that small owner-operated studios are the backbone of the industry, whether amateur, small professional or top of the field. The people who frequent rental studios and are willing to rent (let their client rent) equipment have there place and I have nothing against them. But they are simply not my marketplace - they are less than 5% of the market.

I expect when they travel they stay at 5 star hotels, drive rented Mercedes and dine at the finest restaurants. Then the fall from the graces of their high flying clients (who aren't flying that high right now) and come back to earth.

In this vein, shouldn't we be discussing why Denny's doesn't compare with Woflgang Puck's and why the Hamton Inn should be discredited because it doesn't have the amenities offered by an Inn in the Hamptons, or why a Honda is junk compared to a Ferrari?

I've dealt with and served the Chet Atkins', Dick Clark's, Beatles, Zappas and . . . they all know who I am and what I do. And I've also dealt with and served 1000s of small studios that produced a fair percentage of the music you all listen to. A fair number of them came from my own $5000 studio and they sound just like the ones that came from $3,000,000 studios. In the photo industry, an equally fair number of the pictures and ads you see in the national magazines have also come from my customers.

It's a big world and there's room for everyone. There's on old saying : "It doesn't matter what they are saying as long as they are talking about you." So how many people are talking about all those posters here who spend their time knocking everyone but themselves? Talk is cheap on the internet, success in the real world is another matter.

As an engineer and PT photographer, I hope you don't mind that I throw out my thoughts.

My best compromise solution, because design is always a compromise of competing requirements, is to pull the DC high voltage circuit out of the monolight body and offer it as part of a battery pack. Putting the battery on the stand is useful outdoors. If heavy enough it eliminates the need for a sand bag, which is always a good idea outdoors, thus killing three birds with one stone (size/weight, cost, and stability/utility).

The battery pack gets sold as an option, which helps reduce the price of the basic model, minimizes the monolight's size/weight, and allows lower cost when DC is not needed. Ideally the battery sits below the high voltage circuit and is detachable so a it can be swapped out for a spare battery quickly and easily. This is a good marketing move, as everyone should have a spare battery or two for those extended shoots. The downside I see to this arrangement is the HV cable. A standard coil cable will reach for typical use, but an optional longer cable (or extension) is needed for booms and odd installs. I guess that's yet another option.

Ideally, the battery is Lithium-Ion or better yet, Lithium-Polymer, but that gets expensive. If the market permits, it might be good to offer multiple battery chemistry to accommodate different needs. The charger should come with the battery and the charging connector should be keyed differently for each chemistry.

I have never heard of a useful DC modeling light, but with the advent of LED lighting, it might be possible. The trick is having something that works for AC and DC. LEDs may offer the solution, but of course at a cost of more electronics. On the bright side, the control for LED lighting will be low voltage and much lower power, so it would dissipate less heat.

And finally, a comment about this thread. It started with a sincere suggestion offered with the best of intent, as is my own post. I don't mind at all if someone can poke holes in my ideas, that's what engineering is all about. In the end, holes are patched and compromises made. However, reading through all the posts, I can see where this thread has run off into the ditch with some postings even bordering on personal insult. It's no wonder that a person might get a bit defensive after being subjected to this. Just an observation for whatever value it might be.

-Gene

The Dynalite Uni JR 400 has used a similar solution for a number of years.

It could use the high voltage directly out of a Quantum Turbo or Dynalite Jackrabbit battery via a cable. Both are relatively small units, almost pocket-sized in some cases. There are also 3rd party generic clones available. The Uni itself is a very compact, solidly built portable monolight that weighs under 3 pounds. Solid metal, built like a small bullet.

Dynalite offers a wide range of modifiers. The Uni is 320 Ws on DC, 400 Ws on AC. The only real limitation is the 3 stop adjustment range. I don't know why they haven't updated the unit in 10-15 years.

On the other end, the Broncolor Verso can use a 650 watt modelling light - a real modelling light for bright outdoor locations - with an 8 stop digital adjustment range over 3 channels for up to 3 heads. Either 1200 or 2400 Ws. It is a high-end studio pack built for location use.

It uses a larger battery to do that, but it is the type of pack you might haul when you have another 300+ pounds of equipment to haul anyway for a commercial shoot, as outlined above - large parabolic light modifiers, etc.

In beween are the 12 pound power packs with built in batteries and 50-100 watt modelling lights that are used for 10-20 seconds.

There are a range of solutions available, representing a variety of approaches to the engineering compromises mentioned. They seem to be evolving and getting better over the years.

The smaller Dynalite units used NiCad, then NiMH, etc.. The larger units still use SLA, which is most cost effective and easily replacable. Also easier to have multiple batteries available.

As usual, the more expensive high end units show the most innovation at first. AC inverters have been around in that market since 1988. It eventually "trickles down" to lower price points. Pretty similar to most other "consumer electronics" industries.

To my knowledge, Vagabond 1 was the first commercial pure sine inverter/battery on the market suitable for powering studio flash. Maybe some obscure pure sine system was available but I sure never saw it for sale in the US.

Also, the 1986 WL Ultra was the first monolight with remote control capability in the USA to my knowledge. Again, maybe some obscure uber expensive system offered remote control but I never saw it. Also, to this day I know of no system other than Buff lights that have fully voltage regulated modeling lamps.

As for monolights in general, the only monolights on the market in 1986 were the gigantic Bowens 800B (300WS I believe) at about $1200 US. BronColor peeps mentioned to me the Visatec lights were created to compete with White Lightning Ultra. They never succeeded in that goal to speak of. Many, if not most, modern monolights are based to a large degree on the WL Ultra.

In pro audio, my Allison Research computerized recording console system was the forerunner of all current such systems and was used widely globally by the top cutting edge artists of the 1970. Brag brag brag - I'm so humble I can't stand it. Google Paul C Buff some time. I just got 69 pages of hits.