E-Vener wrote:
But you feel free to instruct people on lighting and photography?
I don't "instruct" people.
I merely show what techniques I use. I state that these techniques have resulted in image sales for me. If I were instructing, I would say that this is the "Right" way to do it. I would point out what is the "Wrong" way. And, I would state that these techniques will result in great photos. But this is not what I do. Again, I merely state that this is what I do, and that clients may buy photos if you were to use similar techniques.
And, it should be noted, a person does not have to be an "expert" for someone to learn something from them. If the amateurs on Model Mayhem were to post videos of their setups I'd be the first one to watch and learn from those videos. I have even learned from watching models shoot each other on their cell phones in my studio. I've learned from watching how they put each other at ease when they shoot and I've adopted some of their techniques into my own shoots.
I do title some of my videos as "photographic tutorial" but that is merely a keyword to generate more views from people searching for that term. The tone of the videos is not "instructional" they way an instructional video that you might pay for is.
a second test. This time with an Elinchrom Quadra head @ 400 w/s. My guess is that the distance from the edge of the PLM to the front of that house is roughly 70 feet. http://www.ellisvener.com/data/web/PLM_test2.jpg
Thanks. Good example of the pronounced peripheral fall off of the parabolic beam, as best seen in the two pillars to the left on the first shot but also along tree trunk as well.
roanjohnnyc wrote:
Thats a cool looking flash head. It's not your traditional ring flash because it doesn't have a hole in the middle for your lens. Which head is that BTW?
This is a Broncolor Ring flash with home made umbrella adapter.
John Ricard wrote:
I merely show what techniques I use. I state that these techniques have resulted in image sales for me.
Thank you for sharing John!
Just having a video showing how someone uses a tool can be very helpful sometimes. It can be har to visualize geometry and mechanics with just verbal descrtiptions.
This board is getting worse and worse, driving off good folks who just want to share. There is little incentive to post here when folks are attacked for the smallest things.
Many good, experienced photographers are giving up and leaving FM. Hope to have you stick around here!
Ellis, great examples. This is the sort of stuff the Silver PLM was really designed for. On the Zeus shots, you say the tree was about 40'. That makes the back trees look like maybe 100 - 150'. Works for me.
The hardest part of using the PLM for outdoor stuff like this is getting it aimed optimally. Usually involves some test shots because that's the only way you can see the pattern. Sure, I could make this a more precision modifier if I want to make it a $500 product.
There are a couple of trees behind the tree in the center but they are smaller and more like to 60 -70 feet away from the PLM than your estimate. I just went out and looked).
I also commend you and also hope you will stick around. I think you have much to contribute.
I particularly appreciate your comment:
John Ricard wrote:
For one thing, I'm not aware of there being a "right" way to
use any piece of equipment.
The most aesthetically minded photographers I know are rarely confined by the way equipment is "supposed" to be used or what others have done.
While this is particularly true with forgiving and versatile modifiers such as the EL Octa, it will no doubt be the case with the PLM as well, as people gradually uncover it's creative potential. Paul has certainly done an admirable job of making a previously esoteric tool available to the masses. It will be very interesting to see what folks can do with it. Hopefully they will not be satisfied with trying to replicate something as much as trying to discover it's own inherent and unique strengths. Although it's been fascinating to watch the process thus far, I will admit it gets a bit difficult wading through the partisan politics and personal agendas to get there. As with all things, time will tell. Meantime patience remains a virtue.
I also couldn't agree more with Michael, that there is becoming less and less incentive for people to try and contribute their experience, perspective or opinion to FM. I really and truly loved this site but I'm starting to find that I have to think twice before I respond to someone else's question or post and ask myself whether I'm better off just lurking or spending my idle time elsewhere.
Dum question, but why is the house being lit so well? If it's a focused beam of light, why isn't the beam closer to 84" in width? Looks like the light spread gradually so it's more a cone of roughly 15'?
kenyee wrote:
Dum question, but why is the house being lit so well? If it's a focused beam of light, why isn't the beam closer to 84" in width? Looks like the light spread gradually so it's more a cone of roughly 15'?
My best guess is that if the reflector were a perfect mirror finish parabola that is exactly what you would see.
kenyee wrote:
Dum question, but why is the house being lit so well? If it's a focused beam of light, why isn't the beam closer to 84" in width? Looks like the light spread gradually so it's more a cone of roughly 15'?
1. It's not designed to do that. Who would want an 86" circle of coverage from 50 - 100' away. A 60° reflector focuses light - not a laser beam but a controlled beam covering a 60° angle. It, too, is typically a parabolic reflector.
2. It would impossible to project a laser like beam from a segmented fabric modifier. This would require a very precise metal reflector with a mirror finish. I'd say about a $20,000 item with little or no practical photographic purpose.
Also, in Ellis' shots, the beam width is way wider than 15'
He uses one a lot. Only one I know of off the top of my head. I think the main difference between this and other Para's is that the other para's are focusable. Unless this one is as well and I just over looked that feature.
Sad news. Unfortunately Markus Klinko and his partner Indrani just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy:
I doubt the expensive parabolics from Bron, etc. would do the laser effect either...
Angle of coverage is a very complex question/equation. With a point source, or a reflector whose diameter is small compared to the target, the answer is easy. Put the light 10' from a wall (technically, an arc with a 10' radius) and calculate the angle where the light falls of to 1/2 (one f stop) relative to the center of the beam. Since you are only measuring one side of the pattern you must multiply by two to yield the angle of the entire beam. Simple math.
But when the light source is large compared to the distance to the subject it becomes more complex. For example, a 10' diameter light source that projects an absolute shaft of light 10' around, it would illuminate a 10' circle from 10' away, and also a 10' circle from 100' away. So to determine the "angle of coverage" you would have to calculate from a great distance - at least ten times the diameter of the light source.
In this example, the angle of beam spread is zero - it acts like a laser. As a result, the beam doesn't spread at all, thus it doesn't follow the inverse square law . . . it will have the same intensity and circle size at any distance (except for atmospheric absorption of the light - i.e. fog.)
Given sufficient number of umbrellas segments and very precise design and manufacture (expensive) it's possible to approach this result. If you look at the chart at the Briese link below you can see that something close to this is achieved. Note the beam spread is approximately the same at 1, 2 and 4 meters. But also notice the true laser like "shaft of light is not achieved . . if it were, the beamwidth would be exactly the width of the reflector (10') with no fall off or feathering. So this acts more like a spotlight focused to somewhere around 8 meters. This is a necessary compromise to allow focusing to the medium and wide positions.
So the short answer to your question is a large parabolic should not be specified in terms of beam angle, but rather, as circle of coverage at various distance and focus positions.
Regarding our PLM, one must understand the optimal design is extremely difficult to calculate because of the segmentation, and even more difficult to have manufactured in China because of large communication gaps as well as intrinsic deviations in sewing accuracy, etc.
As a result, I am now setting up to do very thorough testing and evaluation, and will soon publish the results, complete with pattern pictures and specs at various distances, output charts and model pictures. What I am seeing preliminarily is very satisfying. At the same time I will be the first to admit there will likely be future tweaks and improvements.
That's as honestly as I can state it. As a product development expert once told me "First you make it work, then you make it elegant." Look a a Model T Ford, a Model A and a current version.
This is what a few on these forums don't understand when they bitch and gripe about every detail of an innovative new product and expect the level of elegance and perfection of products that have evolved over many years.
. Good point 
?