It's going to do a lot more than that, no? Wouldn't it also change the focus characteristics, restrict your strobe output and keep it from filling the modifier? It'll give you a hot center by virtue of obstructing light from the edges...that's not the same as having a direct source with diffusers, where your center light is diffused direct strobe and your edge light has a greater proportion of light reflected off the softbox interior. No matter what, the PLM is an indirect source that will have more even light than a direct source. It's up to the photographer whether they prefer even or uneven light in any given situation.
Depending on reflector angle and shaft position the answer could be yes or no. In most cases, probably yes as I would expect that the strobe would have to be a good bit further back for the reflector not to restrict light from the edges (at which point reflection angles have all gone to hell anyway). I was simply meaning to point out that you can still have a hot center if so desired from a PLM; that it's not restricted to a single type of light.
Thanks Paul for your explanations. Please know that the isolated nay-sayers about Physics are mostly not even read by most of us.
I had ordered both the 86" white and silver the day they were available. I know/knew nothing about parabolics except I once saw Jill Greenberg using one on a wall as fill. I wanted one ever since.
Your products are always great and the service beyond compare.
I hope you and you wife are healing from your loss.
Debbi
shatterkiss wrote:
There's a difference between a diffuse source that has a hotter center and just throwing a hard light at someone..
Sorry...I should have been more clear...I meant what Sean said; aiming a strobe directly at someone w/ a strobe throat reflector would be totally different. The PLM wants a strobe w/ just a spill kill reflector, not a 70 degree reflector that is what you typically see strobes sold with. If you use a 70 degree reflector, it sounds like you'd generate a hotspot in the middle of the PLM but I have no idea what the falloff at the edge is.
Thanks for the info on softbox falloff. I had that issue at a recent shoot (foot/legs too hot in a laying position) and didn't think to use the softbox falloff to fix that...didn't notice until I got back and saw it on the big screen
I've got lots of modifers with hot centres. I'd be quite happy to own some that are reeealy even. Isn't that what a lot of the fuss about the big EL Octa is over?
taken from user George M W on POTN.
"Alright: initial thoughts...although I haven't snapped any actual photos yet !
I just got home from work, and the 86"PLM was on the doorstep. First thing I wanted to do was take some light readings....and see if I had consistant light all across the field in front of it. Short answer: yes. Used the Sekonic L-358, AB800. I positioned the umbrella per the instructions....bare AB ( no reflector yet ) with the flash tube lined up roughly even with the ends of the ribs as I looked across it from the side. There is actually just a little flex in the shaft. It doesn't seem like there is enough flex that the umbrella is sagging a lot though. It's enough you can just see the shaft getting a slight curve in it.
The shaft is positioned 2 - 1/4" off the center of the axis of the flash tube.
With the B800 on full power, taking a reading for ISO100 at 10 feet from where the flash head is, I get f/16 on full power. I had consistant readings ( between f/16.5 to f/16.9 ) all the way out to the edges of where I would have expected....and then moving the meter just another six inches or so towards the outer edge of the circle, it would drop off to f/11.
Dialling the B800 down the scale, resulted in exactly what you would expect, each division down the scale dropped one f/stop. The light remained consistant across the field from f/16 down through f/4.
I....am....HAPPY ! I can't wait to shooting some standing human beings in front of it This is gonna be fun."
The PLM does what it says it does according to this users Meter readings.
I am always amazed by the attitudes of photographers and their ability to blindly spout about how something "should work". Thank you for reminding me why I tend to stick to this one board... I love all the 'it's just another umbrella' going on. Sigh.
dont forget the "THAT SHOT IS AMAZING" "GREAT SHOT" "AWESOME LIGHTING" from a simple headshot image of some random person. I would rather you tell me My image is garbage then to fluff it, like most photography boards.
Jammy Straub wrote:
I am always amazed by the attitudes of photographers and their ability to blindly spout about how something "should work". Thank you for reminding me why I tend to stick to this one board... I love all the 'it's just another umbrella' going on. Sigh.
You've got some pretty experienced and talented folks in that thread, like Stephen Eastwood and Kesler - I trust their feedback and opinions far more than pretty much anyone who's posted in this thread (including myself).
Personally, all I care about is the feedback from folks who know what they're doing with light and have actually used the PLM. Anything else is just prognostication. When someone like Eastwood says that the light it produces is nothing like the Profoto and Bron parabolics, I believe him. When someone like Luis Aragon says it puts out really beautiful light and Paul's claims of both output intensity and evenness are dead-on, I believe him too.
i was planning to get the alienbee beauty dish and saw the new PLM on their site. got me interested. is it true that the light will be similar to that of the beauty dish except it being much much bigger? hmm now i dont know which to get ..
shatterkiss wrote:
You've got some pretty experienced and talented folks in that thread, like Stephen Eastwood and Kesler - I trust their feedback and opinions far more than pretty much anyone who's posted in this thread (including myself).
Personally, all I care about is the feedback from folks who know what they're doing with light and have actually used the PLM. Anything else is just prognostication....
Indeed, fortunately those were not the people I was reffering to. I'm refering to things like "Big Bad just another umbrella' and 'it's just not deep enough to be a parabolic'
I find it very humorous how people will deride something they've never even given a chance just because it's not what they are familiar with.
By the way thanks Stephen and Luis, there´s a lot of buzz around this product with lots of people voicing their opinion without even testing the product or even having it at hand to see it, it is truly refreshing to see someone that actually has used it and shares his opinion about it.
Jammy Straub wrote:
I find it very humorous how people will deride something they've never even given a chance just because it's not what they are familiar with.
I almost agree with you...but not quite. I think there's a certain amount of mileage that one can get out of their experience in an area like this...I mean, isn't even something like the Sunny 16 rule based on our ability to predict the results in a situation based on how we expect the variables to interact? If someone's experience with parabolic reflectors dictates certain results from a certain kind of modifier shape, isn't it reasonable to expect that a modifier with a different shape will give different results? I really feel like that's all you're reading.
And, really, how is that any more objectionable than all the folks in a thread like this saying, "I'm so excited! I've never used a parabolic and I don't really even understand what they do but I've ordered two of them and I know they're going to be amazing!" Isn't prejudging simply prejudging, whether it's to the positive or negative?
I just used the 86" white in reflective, shoot-through, and reflective with diffuser front (softlighter style) configurations with an SB28. As a shoot-through it gave light quality identical to shooting through a 6x6 light panel and had extremely little flare, which surprised me considering its convex shape.
While it may not be truly objective I'd much rather see a healthy positive interest in any new product than the opposite reaction. You do have a point that judging something without actually using it or seeing results is pre-judging it whether it be positive or negative. I would say that we should definitely temper out responses with the knowledge that while we may have experience with other similar products those are still different products and we should keep that in mind when speculating on their comparable performance.
Perhaps it is not the positive or negative postulating that bothers me, but something else you've hit on. People just randomly commenting, be it negative or positive, without really understanding what they are saying or even what they are commenting about. This is getting too deep
photobear: can you take a few photos at f22 to see what the light falloff w/ the SB28 is?
I always thought the 60" softlighter wasn't that usable w/ an SB28 because it didn't fill it w/ enough light..
I used the sb28 with a stofen omnidome, which makes it a little more (but not quite), like a bare bulb. I'll try doing a shot, but I've never posted any photos here before. I'll try to figure it out.
