Wish I could, Kenyee, but I have no opportunity to get into the studio this week. Towards the end of next week, I will be happy to take possession of those tools and give em a go. In the meantime, Simon is waiting in the wings with scheduled time in-studio.
I think that a lot of the questionsr about what this modifier can do could have been addressed if Paul had drawn from the plethora of AB and White Lightning photographers to get some accurate test shots to post on his site.
I liked what Profoto did by posting test videos of their new D1 series of lights. It showed the lights being used by a skilled photographer and the final results. It would have been better if they focused a little more on the features of the lights and some of the modifiers - particularly the reflector, since they're purporting that a reflector is unnecessary.
Deezie wrote:
I think that a lot of the questionsr about what this modifier can do could have been addressed if Paul had drawn from the plethora of AB and White Lightning photographers to get some accurate test shots to post on his site.
This has always surprised me as well! Given his loyal following, I'd think that someone in Paul's position would take advantage of it by having a small group of "beta testers" - photographers under NDA that would play with prototypes, generate sample and test images, give feedback on operational design decisions. I know that most of the other major manufacturers do exactly this and definitely use that feedback to influence the final designs. It really can't be that expensive to send prototypes out to a handful of people a month or two before you're expecting to release them, give those guys a few weeks to play and submit their thoughts. Obviously a company like Canon or Nikon or Profoto have a longer lead time on manufacturing than Paul does, but working an extra month into the timeline before a design is finalized shouldn't be a huge impediment.
I liked what Profoto did by posting test videos of their new D1 series of lights. It showed the lights being used by a skilled photographer and the final results. It would have been better if they focused a little more on the features of the lights and some of the modifiers - particularly the reflector, since they're purporting that a reflector is unnecessary.
I think it would also go a long way toward demonstrating the value and intended purpose of a modifier like a parabolic, which might not be obvious for a lot of people. For instance, I never really saw any value in the Profoto Magnum for the type of shooting I do until I listened to a podcast with Jerry Avenaim describing how he used them...and suddenly it both made perfect sense and made me want to buy a Magnum.
Video like that is REALLY easy and inexpensive to generate, especially if you don't feel you need top-notch production value. It's a wonder it's not used more.
shatterkiss wrote:
never really saw any value in the Profoto Magnum for the type of shooting I do until I listened to a podcast with Jerry Avenaim describing how he used them..
Dug up the transcript for this in case anyone else was curious: http://blog.profoto-usa.com/?p=4
Sounds like he uses the Magnum as a giant beauty dish to me...
"(The D1 videos) would have been better if they focused a little more on the features of the lights and some of the modifiers - particularly the reflector, since they're purporting that a reflector is unnecessary.
With the D1 the reflector is only unnecessary if you'll be using an umbrella or want a wide spread of hard light.
With the D1 the reflector is only unnecessary if you'll be using an umbrella or want a wide spread of hard light.
They didn't address the limited spread (70 degrees?) of light and their proposed work-around - which only came about when members on this board queried them. And I recall that some people were confused that there was no reflector, since many use grids.
I'd be interested to see if version 2 of these lights make any changes in that regard. They still appear to be very capable lights.
shatterkiss wrote:
This has always surprised me as well! Given his loyal following, I'd think that someone in Paul's position would take advantage of it by having a small group of "beta testers" - photographers under NDA that would play with prototypes, generate sample and test images, give feedback on operational design decisions. I know that most of the other major manufacturers do exactly this and definitely use that feedback to influence the final designs. It really can't be that expensive to send prototypes out to a handful of people a month or two before you're expecting to release them, give those guys a few weeks to play and submit their thoughts. Obviously a company like Canon or Nikon or Profoto have a longer lead time on manufacturing than Paul does, but working an extra month into the timeline before a design is finalized shouldn't be a huge impediment.
I think it would also go a long way toward demonstrating the value and intended purpose of a modifier like a parabolic, which might not be obvious for a lot of people. For instance, I never really saw any value in the Profoto Magnum for the type of shooting I do until I listened to a podcast with Jerry Avenaim describing how he used them...and suddenly it both made perfect sense and made me want to buy a Magnum.
Video like that is REALLY easy and inexpensive to generate, especially if you don't feel you need top-notch production value. It's a wonder it's not used more....Show more →
We have plenty of unbiased and professional testers receiving PLMs right now - people like Ellis Veneer (PPA) and Rob Galbreath. Sure wouldn't want people like Deezie and Shatterkiss offering "unbiased" test of my products.
Let's see some of your work instead of constant criticism of anything with Paul C. Buff on it.
oobie wrote:
I'd love to see what light patterns this thing generates (fall-off etc). I wonder if somebody would be willing to shoot some photos of this thing pointed into a large white wall...
I'll be doing these next week. Been away for 10 days. Also getting a good mannequin so we can show the lighting effects.
digitaled wrote:
The photos look like they are shot with a Nikon or canon speedlight with a defuser dome on.
Not good lighting at all.
Very bad examples so far.
Would love to see some photos shot using the PLM from someone that knows how to use it,,
Can you say "armchair expert?" For the intended purpose, I found Embrey's work just fine. Let's see examples of how you can do these shots at 15' with a speedlight, (or 5' for that matter). You must like hard shadows and pin size catchlights. Oh, BTW - it's called a "diffuser dome". A defuser is for taking fuses out of your electrical panel if you live in a really old house.
Will be excited to read what Rob has to say about these. In the mean time, can you say whether you'd sanctioned / contacted Stephen about his testing of these?
Paul Buff wrote:
We have plenty of unbiased and professional testers receiving PLMs right now - people like Ellis Veneer (PPA) and Rob Galbreath. Sure wouldn't want people like Deezie and Shatterkiss offering "unbiased" test of my products.
Let's see some of your work instead of constant criticism of anything with Paul C. Buff on it.
Umm...I don't think "customers" and "testers" are quite the same thing.
And what did I say this time to warrant being insulted and sneered at? I'm one of the ones saying how tempted I am to buy your product and that I'm cautiously optimistic about it, just waiting to see more information about it before I spend my money - a pretty reasonable attitude towards any product. I really wish you'd read what I, or Darryl, are saying before insulting us.
My work is available at the little "WWW" link at the bottom of every one of my posts, as well as at http://www.simongerzina.com. It always has been - I'm one of the selective few people in this forum, like you, who doesn't post anonymously.
Paul Buff wrote:
Can you say "armchair expert?" For the intended purpose, I found Embrey's work just fine. Let's see examples of how you can do these shots at 15' with a speedlight, (or 5' for that matter). You must like hard shadows and pin size catchlights.
shatterkiss wrote:
Umm...I don't think "customers" and "testers" are quite the same thing.
And what did I say this time to warrant being insulted and sneered at? I'm one of the ones saying how tempted I am to buy your product and that I'm cautiously optimistic about it, just waiting to see more information about it before I spend my money - a pretty reasonable attitude towards any product. I really wish you'd read what I, or Darryl, are saying before insulting us.
My work is available at the little "WWW" link at the bottom of every one of my posts, as well as at http://www.simongerzina.com. It always has been - I'm one of the selective few people in this forum, like you, who doesn't post anonymously....Show more →
Nothing particularly hostile on this thread - just a few tidbits such as below. But through the months and years there have been plenty.
Also, I don't get "Umm...I don't think "customers" and "testers" are quite the same thing." Is this a slam at Rob Galbreath or Ellis Veneer - both very accomplished professional reviewer for major magazines.
As for being sneered at or insulted, I think I hold the record here in this department.
You'll see plenty of reviews and examples in the very near future. We just started shipping last week.
"Yikes! You're gonna end up with another stand behind it just trying to support the weight." (Wrong - negative speculation)
"That really reduces the value of these for people who own other brands of strobes and basically assures that these aren't focusable after all - that focusing usually happens by either changing how deep the strobe position is or cranking the parabola narrower or wider. With neither of those being feasible on the PLM it's going to just be a big umbrella." (Wrong - negative speculation)
I looked at some of your work. I would say acceptable, but nothing I personally found outstanding.
Paul Buff wrote:
I looked at some of your work. I would say acceptable, but nothing I personally found outstanding.
I'm sure he'll take that as a compliment given your taste in branding.
The light quality doesn't look much different from a normal umbrella, but more testing is definitely required. I'd say the jury is still out, but people can't really expect it to perform as good as the broncolor, profoto, or briese can they?
Paul Buff wrote
We have plenty of unbiased and professional testers receiving PLMs right now - people like Ellis Veneer (PPA) and Rob Galbreath. Sure wouldn't want people like Deezie and Shatterkiss offering "unbiased" test of my products.
Let's see some of your work instead of constant criticism of anything with Paul C. Buff on it.
Paul,
As long as you're critiquing other people's work, you might at least spell the names of your professional testers correctly. I believe that would be, Ellis Vener and Rob Galbraith.
Y'know what, I changed my mind: I'm not so interested in having anyone bring one by the studio so we can shoot tests after all. And c.d., if it's too late to not have that unit ship to me I'll just reship it to you on my dime. I'm really not interested in a product whose maker clearly doesn't want me as a customer.
