I've asked for shots with the big expensive paras showing why some feel they are totally different from PLM in lighting quality. No takers. A customer sent this link. What is it that I am missing? I don't see anything here that shivers my spine.
Deezie wrote:
Then you're doing it backwards. When you position your brand or product in the marketplace it is a maxim that you don't let the rough waters of public opinion dictate your brand's value. What you should do in the future is slip your product, pre-release, to some terrific photographers (like Simon) who will not only beta-test it, but furnish you with amazing photos and positive testimonials. You hire a publicist to find a story angle and submit the story about the pending release of your brilliant product along with testimonials and eye-catching photos. "Oh, my God! I've got to have that!!!" People make decisions to buy based on emotion, and if they're confused, there's no sale.
Releasing your product all herky-jerky without controlling the message shows all the finesse of cracking open a walnut with a jackhammer. It is your job to nuance prospects into believing amazing things will happen when they buy your stuff instead of leaving them confused about the nature of your product's efficacy.
In spite of what you believe, your critical remarks are diminishing -- long-term - the value of your brand in the eyes of your core demographic here on this board..
This is the sort of thing that causes a lot of the problems here. I don't understand your obsession with telling me how I should present my products, my advertising psychology and generally trying to act as some sort of expert on these subjects that really have no place in this forum.
Unlike my competitors, Paul C. Buff, Inc. is unique in that it is an extension of myself rather than being another board-run non-human corporation. Humans have peculiarities, personalities, eccentricities and methods to the madness that corporate entities might perceive as negative.
The fact is that my company has grown every single year since its founding in 1981 (including during the current recession) and enjoys the highest customer satisfaction and market share in the industry is proof enough for me that I am doing the right things. A dozen or so detractors out of some 500,000 customers are certainly not going to cause me to suddenly reassess the effectiveness of what I do.
Got an idea . . . you run your company how you like and I'll do the same.
As for Simon, I'm willing to apologize if my comments were out of line.
digitaled wrote:
Ok Paul so you want to see Nikon speed light photos here are some of my armchair expert photos as you would call them.
I have a few hundred thousand if you need some more..
I was not cracking down on your new PLM just the photos posted so far but i see you took this wrong to like most things.
I would say these are excellent speedlight photos. Certainly there are many situations where speedlights can produce great results. But there are other situations where more advanced lighting is desirable. Otherwise there would be no studio lighting industry would there?
A speedlight costs a couple hundred bucks and a full blown Broncolor setup can add up to $40,000. We serve the broad middle between these extremes.
I like your products, even own a BUNCH of things. I think what people are saying (and maybe coming across to YOU as bashing) is just advice that some other people would like you to try and get them more information.
I think you do a great job of getting people information yourself to us, but I think the proof is in the pudding and you might even get MORE people to buy your products if you showed them comparables against other manufacturers. Just my $.02. I am not telling you how to run your business, but just providing you a brief opinion on what I WOULD like to see to buy MORE of your products.
I will admit I only bought you products because of the great reviews they got. I think if you got the pros or even yourself to test your products against the other big boys and showed that yours are similar for a much better price point you would sell even more and have an even BIGGER customer base.
Again don't take this as me trying to tell you how to run your business, but I have to think (I know for me anyway) more people would be buying these with more real world results and you would get these results by showing comparables.
On that note I am buying more of your products today, just not the PLM right now until I see more results.
Not to get off topic with a lighting discussion. Has anyone tried these with a Speedotron 102 head. How close to the umbrella shaft does the flash tube have to be.
I like your products, even own a BUNCH of things. I think what people are saying (and maybe coming across to YOU as bashing) is just advice that some other people would like you to try and get them more information.
I think you do a great job of getting people information yourself to us, but I think the proof is in the pudding and you might even get MORE people to buy your products if you showed them comparables against other manufacturers. Just my $.02. I am not telling you how to run your business, but just providing you a brief opinion on what I WOULD like to see to buy MORE of your products.
I will admit I only bought you products because of the great reviews they got. I think if you got the pros or even yourself to test your products against the other big boys and showed that yours are similar for a much better price point you would sell even more and have an even BIGGER customer base.
Again don't take this as me trying to tell you how to run your business, but I have to think (I know for me anyway) more people would be buying these with more real world results and you would get these results by showing comparables.
On that note I am buying more of your products today, just not the PLM right now until I see more results.
Ryan ...Show more →
I appreciate the voice of reason. Problem is, when I (or my customers) compare to other products I just get bashed more for daring to compare an inexpensive product to an expensive one. You see it here when PLM is compared to expensive paras. The thought "how dare you" comes to mind. Also, I tend to march to my own drummer and try to innovate and do my own thing rather than to compare to, or even acknowledge, competitors.
Notice guide numbers of about 250 from 320WS. Also note guide number increases with distance . . . this is a result of the physics of a very large source. GNs from typical softboxes at this power level are on the order of 80.
The very high efficiency from a very large light source, with even coverage, is what PLM is designed for.
Note - the slight side spill in one of these shots will disappear when the 7" PLM Reflector is used.
Paul Buff wrote:
I've asked for shots with the big expensive paras showing why some feel they are totally different from PLM in lighting quality. No takers.
You are the only business owner I have known of who - instead of demonstrating why their product is different, or superior, or unique at a certain price point - effectively dares his potential customers to do so for them.
You are the business owner, you are the one selling the product, the onus is on you to demonstrate the effectiveness, differences, or lack there of; certainly you have access to more resources than most of your customers, and you should have an innate desire and motivation to do so.
E-Vener wrote:
At 10 feet the variation in illumination level from edge to center to edge across a seven foot circle was within 2/10ths stop. That is without the diffusion cover on the 86" PLM
This is extremely impressive.
My "80% of a Big Octa (when used outdoors) for 20% of it's price (incl strobe)" may well be exceeded.
There are Youtube vids of Annie Leibovitz using the 60" Softliter on location (ie in one she is shooting Sean Connary on a boat ramp). I'm guessing she'll be buying a set of PLM's at some point!
Paul Buff wrote:
As for Simon, I'm willing to apologize if my comments were out of line.
Paul,
Simon has often recommended your products to others on this forum, even though he uses typical fashion Euro equipment himself. His non-snob attitude is unlike most high end equipment users, and has helped make him one of THE most widely respected posters on this forum.
OK, so he didn't immediately "get" how the PLM's would be different from standard umbrellas, but most of us photographers don't have science degrees earned in a previous life. Also, there have been plenty of manufacturers claiming design breakthroughs, that have not amounted to a hill of beans in the real world, so many of us are cautious till real world results can be demonstrated.
I personally believe that Simon have given the PLM’s an unbiased trail (unlike some here, he has no anti-PCB axe to wield), and that he would have ended up adding one or more of the PLM’s to his tool collection.
E-Vener wrote: I am not sure how they calculated the spread of light coming out of the D1. I suspect the measurement may be conforming to an ISO standard where you only measure the angle from axis in one direction. I reviewed the D1 system for Professional Photographer (August 2009 issue) and in the real world the standard D1 beam pattern (withthe the little glass diffusor in place) is certainly a lot wider than that, more like about 140 degrees. Any non diffused hard reflector you add to the D1 is only going to narrow that spread.
Ellis - I haven't had a chance to work with the D1's, but the info below is directly from Profoto's site. It's interesting that would err to such a degree on this stat.
Yeah I agree Deezie but I suspect the measurement has something to do with fall off maybe beyond 77 degrees the illumination level starts dropping below Profoto's standard.
shoebox9 wrote:
I personally believe that Simon have given the PLM’s an unbiased trail (unlike some here, he has no anti-PCB axe to wield), and that he would have ended up adding one or more of the PLM’s to his tool collection.
Ditto that. Simon has always been helpful in sharing his knowledge and honest about how well he thinks various tools work (he also likes softlighters but thinks they're too flimsy, so the PLM would have been a good fit for him)-:
Notice guide numbers of about 250 from 320WS. Also note guide number increases with distance . . . this is a result of the physics of a very large source. GNs from typical softboxes at this power level are on the order of 80.
The very high efficiency from a very large light source, with even coverage, is what PLM is designed for.
Note - the slight side spill in one of these shots will disappear when the 7" PLM Reflector is used.
Very, very helpful; thanks for the link and the guide number discussion above, Paul.
Littlebike wrote:
You are the only business owner I have known of who - instead of demonstrating why their product is different, or superior, or unique at a certain price point - effectively dares his potential customers to do so for them.
You are the business owner, you are the one selling the product, the onus is on you to demonstrate the effectiveness, differences, or lack there of; certainly you have access to more resources than most of your customers, and you should have an innate desire and motivation to do so.
We are now in the process of doing extensive shooting and documenting of the PLM and 22R High Output Beauty dish (Being made now). I have been 500 miles away 18 days out of the last month tending to my dying mother in law. She passed last week and I just got back to Nashville yesterday.
Also, when I post test results here, particularly in comparison to other products, they are often called lies or manipulations by a predictable set of readers. Also, this is a bit against the forum rules and I get in trouble for that as well. Time will heal the wounds and paint an accurate picture.
I used two, the largest and next size down, they are nothing at all like a broncolor para or profoto version. Not even remotely the same type of light coming from it.
That said, its a nice powerful light modifier (silver/no diffusion) I used 3 580exII's in one and over powered the sun at around 5PM with a mild high speed sync. (For this I had the bruce dorn triple threat mount and TT5's)
The shaft on one of the largest broke under its own weight, the other has not and the smaller seems more steady. It may have been a defect in the one shaft, I am sure they will replace it when I call monday.
They need a much much stronger shaft system, which is why the para has a different mounting rig, there is a lot of weight on the end, and I can say these would never last outside in even a slight wind, forget tipping over the shaft would break before that.
In studio they are a nice cheap addition, punchy and bright.
I will be bringing them to a small one hour speedlite equipment and options demo I am doing at a workshop this next sunday in NJ if anyone is around and wants to see them before ordering.
Everyone here says Stephen Eastwood is the dream tester. But in his test above he used 580EXs in it, and broke the shaft. Without having additional info, I would say this is not a test at all. The only way you could begin to fill the PLM with speedlight would be to mount it at the bitter end of the shaft (exactly in opposition to our specific published instructions).
Doing this completely destroys the parabolic relationship and is no test at all. With the light outside the focus zone (approximately at the outer edge of the PLM) you might as well use a piece of tinfoil.
To fulfill it's design intent, the PLM must be used with a bare bulb source positioned in the focal zone shown in the instructions that come with it.
Stephen used one of these-
[url=http://www.idcphotography.com/kart/index.php?p=image&image_src=http://www.idcphotography.com/kart/images/products/319-tt.jpg[/url]
This bracket allows 3 Speedlites to have their bases virtually on the shaft, and each point up at the outer brolly area, fairly effectively filling the whole fabric (though not very evenly) from the point at which a bare bulb would have.
Paul Buff wrote:
Everyone here says Stephen Eastwood is the dream tester. But in his test above he used 580EXs in it, and broke the shaft. Without having additional info, I would say this is not a test at all. The only way you could begin to fill the PLM with speedlight would be to mount it at the bitter end of the shaft (exactly in opposition to our specific published instructions).
Doing this completely destroys the parabolic relationship and is no test at all. With the light outside the focus zone (approximately at the outer edge of the PLM) you might as well use a piece of tinfoil.
To fulfill it's design intent, the PLM must be used with a bare bulb source positioned in the focal zone shown in the instructions that come with it....Show more →
He's doing a lighting workshop / demo including the PLM this coming Saturday in NJ. I suspect that if the proper AB / WL light and kill spill reflector were made available he'd be happy to test it again for assessment of the light quality.
This bracket allows 3 Speedlites to have their bases virtually on the shaft, and each point up at the outer brolly area, fairly effectively filling the whole fabric (though not very evenly) from the point at which a bare bulb would have.
Three off axis points are not really the same thing as a single point closer the axis. Also even with four heads set to the widest spread you can't fill the bowl of the bige PLM with resorting to a Stofen omni dome or something like that - -and you are going to lose at least a stop of light with one of those. But it might be interesting to see what one of the Gary Fong cups do.
Conclusion: I think people should keep experimenting as necessity is the mother of invention.
I've used the 7ft Profoto umbrella and it is indeed a very nice light. Profoto's design puts the head at the optimum on axis point. An attachment system like that would be an interesting option. Downsides are that it is very expensive and also very heavy and you need a really heavy duty cinema grade light stand like this
It isn't that the weight of the head plus Giant is anywhere near the maximum capacity of that stand, it is that the weight is completely on one side of the pivot. yes you could use it o na light weight C-Stand but that really is not the best tool for the job.
