Balcar Zebra Umbrellas

Timber B. recently made the following claim in another thread in this

forum:<P><I>"Zebra umbrellas are terrible. What a bad idea. This umbrella, and I

own one of them, has alternating silver/white light panels. As a result, it gives off

"stripped light" like a zebra! There are only about 8 panels so it doesn't really

emulate a zebra! it just makes spotty light! What an idea! It is supposed to be "sort

of efficient" due to the mixture of panels. All it does is create unevenness!"

</I><P>Personally I have never seen this "spotty, uneven" light pattern using my

Balcar Zebra umbrellas but I don't use the Zebras (or other types of umbrellas) very

often. When I do use a Balcar Zebra umbrella I do see a more specular, and hence a

light that is a little

harder than what I get out of a simple white umbrella of aprroximately the same size.

It also is a more efficient reflector than a simple white umbrella is.<P>

Has anybody else seen the problem that T.B. claims? I don't want anecdotal evidence,

I want to see proof. I want to see recent examples either way. I also want to know

what

your setup is: head or monolight (including brand), whether or not you use an

umbrella

reflector, and approximate distance to light. Please keep the iamge to smaller that

100KB and no longer than 500 pixels on the longest dimension. Preferably this

should be a straight forward portrait with a plain background.<P>And yes Timber B.

this means I would like to see a sample from you too.</B>

Once a certain skill level is reached with portraiture,umbrellas of any type become valueless(in my humble opinion).They dont evenly light large areas,and they cant be feathered or adjusted for small areas.Plus their diffusion quality quickily loses its softness over relatively short distances.There only value is under certain situations as behind the camera fill.I cant imagine that a "zebra" striped umbrella would be much use?Some products are an "ad" man's dreams,that is they are made to be sold,not used!

I think I stored my Zebra umbrella somewhere I can never find it again. That is fine with

me. I think the Zebra should have its silver panels removed and used as a simple white

reflector umbrella.

 

The selling line that the Balcar representative gave the audience when I bought one in the

1980s sometime was that mixing the panels creates a light quality which is somewhere in

between "white" and "silver-saturated". He demonstrated it with a diffusor which has its

own f stop penalty.

 

A flat panel with a patterned mixture of silver and white, like the "Gold" reflectors maybe

sold by Sunbounce is the way to mix these two surfaces. Some fashion photographers

actually use really hole ridden cloth like a grandmother would lay across her shoulders,

lots of frills, lay this across a silver vinyl mylar surface. In this way, the silver mylar is

"toned down" in an even, distributed way. The smaller the "checkerboard pattern" is, the

better. The Zebra is a concept umbrella that lead to the later ideas of a fine distribution of

white and silver in the material.

 

The Zebra umbrella could work only if they change the material and layout to be like

Sunbounce or wherever I saw this material.

 

If you use the Zebra umbrella with a modeling light, you will see its patterned "spots", not

stripes on the wall. I never used it once I saw that. I felt like I had been taken.

 

As Steve wisely said, some products are made only for selling and making a profit. This is

definitely one of those. Only if you use the diffusor can you make any use of it. When you

use the diffusor, the effect of the Zebra's partial saturation claim is lost---in diffusion.

 

I should have sold my Zebra to someone before I made these statements! Help!

 

I do think that being vinyl, it would make an unusual rain umbrella.

Steve Levine's comment above has a certain weight of wisdom I like.

<i>Once a certain skill level is reached with portraiture,umbrellas

of any type become valueless(in my humble opinion).</i><p>

<a href="http://www.phillipstewartcharis.com/about.html">Phillip

Charis</a> might disagree, but everyone knows he's merely a

'hack' photographer [sifthi]. He's been using umbrellas for

decades to help light his 4x5/5x7 film-based portraits.

Timothy Greenfield-Sanders is another one who has mainly used a one-umbrella setup for most of his career. On the one hand one might say that this simple style of lighting doesn't show much creativity or innovation, but on the other hand it puts the emphasis on the interaction with subject and gives a formal unity to his work that makes it hang well as a show or monograph.

Steve Levine is saying that umbrella's cannot compete with other sources of bounce light

for versatility. Umbrellas are to be used in a confined distance relationship to the subject.

A broad white flat, therefore, has more choices open to the photographer.

 

Ellis Vener wants comments regarding "Zebra umbrellas" so how do the comments

regarding general umbrella usage apply here? Have any of you seen a Zebra umbrella?

Have you used it?

 

The Zebra umbrella is not a parabolic shape, nor is it an ellipse. It is the shape of an

umbrella. As a result, the silver panels reflect light according to their irregular shape.

Timber, you can spin <i>anything</i> like a bad political speech writer. Fortunately Steve L.'s words are right there for us to read, you don't need to interpret them for us. <p>Umbrellas have their appropriate applications, whether you like them, or not. As for this most recent example of Timberese double speak "<i>As a result, the silver panels reflect light according to their irregular shape.</i>... would that light be reflected irregularly? I know you abhor any light that is not uniform and shadowless, so I can understand why anything "irregular" would meet your disapproval.<p>We're talking aesthetics, not absolutes, when comparing light modifiers and their effects... t

"according to their irregular shape" is a reference to the panels. Light is not reflected

"irregularly" unless you are traveling at the speed of light.

 

I do not believe in "flat light" as a solution for all images. Tom Meyer is providing the

readers with entertainment. This indicates that this thread is at an end.

here is my proof that Timber is confused. the methodology used to make this sample

is found in

<A href = http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007fcA> this

thread </A> I must assume Timber willfully is ignoring

thatthreads existence, or perhaps he classifies it as entertainment.<div></div>

Ellis, I own a Zebra umbrella. I also am trained in mathematics. I am also aware that

Balcar demands that this umbrella be used with a diffusor to get rid of the uneveness that

this umbrella produces. This umbrella does not have a mathematical formula that can

make it an even source of light. It is very easy to simply turn on your modeling light and

to see the stripes of uneveness that this Zebra umbrella produces. These are not sharp

stripes, these are rather soft blotches. You would have to illuminate a wall from, say 4

feet or 6 feet onto a medium colored surface to see this. Your test is not scientific. You

are angling this light and not using a disciplined procedure. Perhaps you are impressed

with yourself, but I am not impressed with your test.

 

Put a modeling light on it, take off the diffusor, place it within 5 feet of a medium color

wall, then look at the result with your own eyes. Take a photograph just using the

modeling lights as the illumination.

 

Someday I may dig out my old Zebra umbrella and post my own test. Just lately, I looked

at one in a camera store and we illuminated it: uneveness.

 

It is a gimmick product. Sunbounce mixes white with silver/gold. But they do it with tiny

patterns, not broad pieces of panels as the Zebra umbrella is.

 

I think you lack the education to conduct a serious scientific test. You are just playing

around.

<i>I think you lack the education to conduct a serious scientific

test. You are just playing around.

</i><p>

I'll go with the evidence Ellis provided over your unsubstantiated

insults. If you can substantiate any of your claims, I'd reconsider,

though the insults are still inappropriate.

Timber, there are probably three people who provide advice in this forum on a regular basis.<br>Ellis Vener<br>Brooks Short<br>Yourself<p>Both Ellis & Brooks provide detailed info in their answers and often illustrate their answers with example photos - not to *prove* that they are right, but to help people to understand the reasons for their advice. Both are established and respected commercial photographers with many years of successful trading and both have well-equipped, professional studios.<br>And then there is you. You may of course be a brilliant photographer for all I know, and you may have a degree in mathmatics, or nuclear physics or whatever - but the only judgements that I or anyone else on this forum can make has to be based on your statements that you photograph weddings, that you are a professional photographer and that you have a magic formulae for working out how much light will be absorbed when using various types of lighting diffusers, none of which, as far as I know, have ever been supported by any evidence.<br>And then of course, there are the statements that you have made about yourself, which perhaps say more about the man than the photographer - this one, from another thread in which you offered advice <i>"When I started as a pro photographer in 1973, I didn't know how to develop film. I didn't know how to use studio lights. However, I got 2 assignments from a friend editor who didn't know I didn't own a camera."</i><p>I don't wish to be rude, but I think that much of the advice you provide is unhelpful and I also feel that you should either provide the evidence requested by Ellis in his initial question or admit that your statement was made based only on opinion and without any supporting evidence. Making insults about the educational status of others is negative, offensive and does nothing to raise your credibilty.

Timber:

 

A. No diffuser was used, just the head straight into the umbrella,

 

B. the zebra umbrella is designed to illuminate over a narrower angle than a standard

white umbrella.

 

C.) I have a minor in physics.

 

D.) when I use umbrellas I don't rely on the modeling light as the light source: I use

the flash tube.

 

E.) You show no proofs at all to show that I might be wrong, just make claims based

on speculations. you need to "put up or shut up" as the saying goes.

 

F.) Balcar does not demand that this umbrella be used with a diffusor to get rid of the

uneveness that this umbrella produces. Once again, as you do in other posts, you

distort and mis-quote what other people have written.

 

G.) My point is not to impress you. My point is to correct the mis-information you

spread. when you are right I back you up. where you are wrong I will disagree with

you and through demonstration prove where you are wrong.

Timber is correct. And the others have a point. And I will explain why.

 

There have been at least 2 VERSIONS of the Zebra Umbrella. The first umbrella was

replaced

by an improved softer model. This LATEST improved model has not-so-shiney panels.

The reason the improved model was created was because the original shiney panels, as

shiney as mirrors, and you could count hairs in them on your head (nearly) as they were

silver soft mylar or mylar-like, reflected light

like 6 mirrors. Since the panels were collapsable, this put permanent uneven patterns in

the silver mirror material that reflected light in uneven ways. These "mirror panels" in the

zebra umbrella put patterns on the subject you were photographing. Photographers

complained of this uneveness, and so the umbrella was "toned down" and softened with

new softer panels. No longer were the panels like mirrors. New, satin silver panels were

substituted. As a result, the newer umbrella no longer had the "punch" and contrast of the

original umbrella. It became a "watered down" product.

 

The big reason Balcar made the umbrella was to fill a hole between their all shiney silver

umbrella and their white umbrella. So, they alternated panels with mirror silver and white

vinyl.

 

So, you have to now decide WHICH umbrella you are talking about: THE NEWER OR OLDER

ones.

Balcar did indeed advise photographers to use the diffuser over the original, older

umbrella. In demonstrations in a convention site, Balcar stated to the audience that the

diffuser was

optional, but recommended. It was recommended because the mirror panels were TOO

SHINEY. The newer umbrella is closer to a white umbrella than a true 1/2 MIRROR and 1/2

WHITE umbrella.

 

And since it is pretty close to being a white umbrella in contrast/saturation, why buy it?

With digital photography, the contrast/saturation of the scene can be manipulated, so the

Zebra umbrella is sort of a novelty now, and not a necessary, thank you. It is amazing

that all of you spent so much time on such an obscure light modifer. Haven't you all heard

of digital photography?

 

Some photographers use umbrellas very, very closely to the subject, like a light tent. This

umbrella would not be my choice for close-in use. Maybe it is good for lighting up

rooms.

 

If it were really a great umbrella, everyone would own a Zebra Umbrella. Photographers

are competitive and like to buy the newest BEST TOY. Yet, hardly anyone knows of it, and

it has been around since about 1977.

 

Balcar is very inventive and certainly the Zebra Umbrella may go through more changes. I

think that Timber must own an original Zebra Umbrella and became dissatisfied with it and

failed to purchase the newer, later replacement.

 

In any test for the subjective output of a light modifier, it is better to use a colored 3

dimensional subject so that we can see any change in the contrast or saturation of the

colors. I don't regard Mr. Vener's test as particularly valuable. Balcar stated that the

saturation of the subject would increase as a result of using a Zebra umbrella. His test

doesn't allow us to see a saturation change because he is using black and white subjects:

Mr.

Vener created an INVALID TEST for this type of light modifier.

I agree with Timber. But you need to know more about the history of this umbrella to

make your decisions.

 

There have been at least 3 (three) versions of the Balcar Zebra Umbrella, and there may be

a 4th or 5th. I will give you some history on this unusual umbrella.

 

The 1st version used highly shiney aluminum panels which were composed of aluminum

foil. This foil was thinner than household foil. As you collapsed this umbrella, you had

to manual fold each panel to make sure that the foil folded like an umbrella. If you did not

help the umbrella collapse, the foil would crinkle just like foil, and it would subsequently

rip after a few dozen collapsing episodes.

 

The foil of this umbrella was very shiney, like a mirror: Think of the 2 sides of aluminum

foil: One is very dull, the other is very, very shiney, like a mirror. Now, when you have

shiney foil or a shiney reflector, it gives off a sharp reflection. If the reflector is not a

"mathematical" shape as Timber suggests or complains about here, (parabolic or

ellipsoidal) then the light output will positively be uneven. Think about your common

household flash light, note how the reflector in it is a mirror and it is so, so perfect in

shape. Well, distort that shape, and it distorts the light output. This is what timber is

referring to, distortion output when the reflector is shiney. This umbrella required useage

of a diffusor, and the additional cost made this a very expensive umbrella.

 

2nd Version of the Zebra Umbrella by Balcar flipped the aluminum foil to show the dull

side out. This made a more even light, but it still had problems. It didn't require the use

of a diffusor because the panels were more dull. But it also didn't put out the color

saturation of the original shiney panels, either. It still failed due to the aluminum foil

ripping. You could figure the umbrella would last about a year before the aluminum foil

ripped.

 

3rd Version of the Zebra Umbrella by Balcar got rid of the aluminum foil. What a relief.

You no longer had to baby the umbrella when you closed it. But the plastic mylar or

Lamay material was very shiney. It was almost as shiney as the original alluminum foil

umbrella. As a result, you needed to consider using a diffusor, especially if you used the

umbrella close to the subject. If you were photographing people, it was too contrasty and

made the oil in their skin show. So, if you were a people photographer, like Timber, you

didn't like this umbrella. For high contrast people shots, you are better off with a

ringlight, by the way.

 

4th Versions....new materials and dull panels.

 

There are no compelling reasons to use a Zebra umbrella in this age of digital color

saturation adjustments in Photoshop. These Zebra umbrellas give only one step of color

saturation change; in Photoshop you have multiple changes, and there is no additional

expense to change the color saturation in photoshop.

 

While these umbrellas put out about 1/2 - 3/4 f stop of additional light power, every

photographer can simply click up his power on his pack to do the same thing. Better to

have more power on tap to be used with OTHER light modifiers.

 

The last argument for owning a Zebra umbrella is beam spread. When compared to a

white umbrella, these umbrellas put out a slightly more narrow light spread. So what. I

can do the same by moving the umbrella in a foot or so closer, or I can use go-betweens

to really shape the light to the custom shape I really need; how often do you really need a

round beam? Remember, you are usually darkening near objects and illuminating far

objects so you customize the beam shape by using go-betweens, barn doors or grids or

Louvers.

 

So, using a white umbrella with Louvers and Photoshop for color contrast control

completely supplants any need of a Zebra Umbrella.

 

Timber's warning is well taken.

 

I think that in any review of this umbrella by those above that they should commit

themselves to naming what kinds of subjects this umbrella is best mated to instead of

creating all of the tiresome hysterial reactions to Timber's warning. If he slowed you up

some in your purchase of this umbrella, then good, but there are more considerations to

thinking about. Consider that you don't need it in this age of digital manipulations.

I agree with Timber. But you need to know more about the history of this umbrella to

make your decisions.

 

There have been at least 3 (three) versions of the Balcar Zebra Umbrella, and there may be

a 4th or 5th. I will give you some history on this unusual umbrella.

 

The 1st version used highly shiney aluminum panels which were composed of aluminum

foil. This foil was thinner than household foil. As you collapsed this umbrella, you had

to manual fold each panel to make sure that the foil folded like an umbrella. If you did not

help the umbrella collapse, the foil would crinkle just like foil, and it would subsequently

rip after a few dozen collapsing episodes.

 

The foil of this umbrella was very shiney, like a mirror: Think of the 2 sides of aluminum

foil: One is very dull, the other is very, very shiney, like a mirror. Now, when you have

shiney foil or a shiney reflector, it gives off a sharp reflection. If the reflector is not a

"mathematical" shape as Timber suggests or complains about here, (parabolic or

ellipsoidal) then the light output will positively be uneven. Think about your common

household flash light, note how the reflector in it is a mirror and it is so, so perfect in

shape. Well, distort that shape, and it distorts the light output. This is what timber is

referring to, distortion output when the reflector is shiney. This umbrella required useage

of a diffusor, and the additional cost made this a very expensive umbrella.

 

2nd Version of the Zebra Umbrella by Balcar flipped the aluminum foil to show the dull

side out. This made a more even light, but it still had problems. It didn't require the use

of a diffusor because the panels were more dull. But it also didn't put out the color

saturation of the original shiney panels, either. It still failed due to the aluminum foil

ripping. You could figure the umbrella would last about a year before the aluminum foil

ripped.

 

3rd Version of the Zebra Umbrella by Balcar got rid of the aluminum foil. What a relief.

You no longer had to baby the umbrella when you closed it. But the plastic mylar or

Lamay material was very shiney. It was almost as shiney as the original alluminum foil

umbrella. As a result, you needed to consider using a diffusor, especially if you used the

umbrella close to the subject. If you were photographing people, it was too contrasty and

made the oil in their skin show. So, if you were a people photographer, like Timber, you

didn't like this umbrella. For high contrast people shots, you are better off with a

ringlight, by the way.

 

4th Versions....new materials and dull panels.

 

There are no compelling reasons to use a Zebra umbrella in this age of digital color

saturation adjustments in Photoshop. These Zebra umbrellas give only one step of color

saturation change; in Photoshop you have multiple changes, and there is no additional

expense to change the color saturation in photoshop.

 

While these umbrellas put out about 1/2 - 3/4 f stop of additional light power, every

photographer can simply click up his power on his pack to do the same thing. Better to

have more power on tap to be used with OTHER light modifiers.

 

The last argument for owning a Zebra umbrella is beam spread. When compared to a

white umbrella, these umbrellas put out a slightly more narrow light spread. So what. I

can do the same by moving the umbrella in a foot or so closer, or I can use go-betweens

to really shape the light to the custom shape I really need; how often do you really need a

round beam? Remember, you are usually darkening near objects and illuminating far

objects so you customize the beam shape by using go-betweens, barn doors or grids or

Louvers.

 

So, using a white umbrella with Louvers and Photoshop for color contrast control

completely supplants any need of a Zebra Umbrella.

 

Timber's warning is well taken.

 

I think that in any review of this umbrella by those above that they should commit

themselves to naming what kinds of subjects this umbrella is best mated to instead of

creating all of the tiresome hysterial reactions to Timber's warning. If he slowed you up

some in your purchase of this umbrella, then good, but there are more considerations to

thinking about. Consider that you don't need it in this age of digital manipulations.

Timber is seemingly more of a perfectionist than Mr. Vener; or, his people work demands

closer tolerances than the other photographers. Therefore, there is a difference between

their opinions, I believe.

 

After photographing a DARK wall with a digital camera, I "read pixtels" for their "densities",

for their values in Photoshop. This operation is more accurate than using a incident

meter! The Zebra umbrella indeed does not create "even illumination" using this precise

methodology.

 

And I would like to know what light source creates "even illumination"? I mean, they all

have light fall-off edge to edge and various forms of "hot spots" or "rings" of uneveness in

their output! Where do you want to draw the line? These may be caused by the light bulb

not being positioned at mathematically the correct spot, or the reflector not being "tuned"

to the light bulb or the reflector may not mathematically fit the perfect ellipse or parabolic

shape. Since when are umbrellas perfect ellipsoidal shapes? When are they perfect

parabolic shapes? Hey, they are an approximation shape that folds easily, and that is all

they are. To put it another way, these umbrellas only partially approximate what a

parabolic reflector should be. They aren't perfect, and never will be!

 

The other kinds of perpetual arguments that photographers get into are: "Is this type of

lens sharp?" Oh boy, so what is 'sharp'? Everyone has a different answer. So what is "even

illumination?" The arguments never end. As long as nothing is perfectly sharp, and

nothing in the photographic world will perfectly evenly illuminate a flat wall at every

distance, 3 ft, 6 ft, 10 ft, 30 ft, you have a potential for unlimited disagreements.

 

Time for a cup of coffee!

Mr. Reading, I know nothing about you (other than that you have only just registered with PN and seem to have a very similar writing style to that of Mr. Borchling).

 

I knew very little about Mr. Borchling either, except that he claimed expertise in a number of fields but never supported these claims with any evidence.

 

In this thread, he was invited to provide evidence to support his claims. He failed to do so. Thread dead.

Balcar, the manufacturer of the Zebra umbrella doesn't claim that it puts out "even

illumination" or anything close to such a representation. Broncolor Hazylight, however,

goes to further lengths to describe the light output of its light modifier.

 

Now, if the manufacturer doesn't promise edge-to-edge even illumination, and nobody in

the world will make this promise and back it up, then all you have is an opinion of one

person. There are no postings on the internet giving the zebra umbrella rave reviews for

"even lighting". A Broncolor hazylight vs. a Zebra Umbrella? Which is the winner for even

illumination? If you have any experience with either, you will not vote for the Zebra

umbrella.

 

Balcar wisely only says this about the Zebra umbrella: from their www.balcar.com page:

"Balcar, creator of this light in the 50?s has been copied many times, but still provides the

top of the line designs. Three levels of reflection are available: WHITE for a large angle and

soft shadows, ZEBRA for 8/10 f-stop increased output with tighter angle and slight

hardening of shadows, METAL to amplify this effect. Three sizes are available to select an

umbrella well adapted to the size of the subject. The OPALE umbrella transmits the light

creating a very diffused light that can be placed very close to the subject.

 

It should be obvious that they are only making 2 promises: harder shadows, and more

light output. There is nothing regarding "even illumination" or "edge to edge even

gradation" or more explanation in their own literature! I will go with what Balcar will

promise. It isn't even eveness of illumination for the Zebra!

Broncolor, on the other hand, goes to far further lengths to make promises of its

"Hazylight". From the Sinar/Broncolor internet site:

 

"The Hazylight 2 and Hazylight Soft reflectors are designed to produce ?wraparound?

lighting over a 20 degree field. The large 40"x40" parabolic reflectors reduce light scatter

and give you precise, even gradation.

The Hazylight 2 yields higher illumination and color saturation than an equally powered

multi-head banklight. The Hazylight 2 is highly recommended for advertising, fashion,

and still-life photography.

The Hazylight Soft gives you a softer light with no hot spot. Highlights in reflective objects

such as glass and metal appear flawlessly even.

Also available is the smaller version, the Mini-Hazylight."

 

Note that it says "precise, even gradation." It also makes mention of "Parabolic" shaped

reflector to help make all this "precise, even gradation" happen in light output.

Comparing the promises of the 2 products, the Hazylight wins for "even gradation" or

illumination in just the reading comparison here.

 

If the manufacturers have a feature, you know they will tout it. The Balcar Zebra cannot

be said to give even illumination; not with this competition and all the other products out

there!

Lucy wote:<P><I>So, you have to now decide WHICH umbrella you are talking about: THE

NEWER OR OLDER ones.</I><P>Given your explanation, I would have to say I am talking

aboutthe newer ones then.<P>"Thomas Redding" appears to my eye to be the same

person as "Timber B." since the prose & posting styles are identical -- so it isn't surprising

that he agrees with himself.

So it now appears that "Lucy", "Thomas" & "Timber" are the same person!

I have to admit that I always felt a bit sorry for 'Timber'.

 

I felt that most of the information he gave was flawed or even plain wrong and sometimes it was downright dangerous - but I also felt that he was well-intentioned and that he genuinely tried to help other people.

 

But now my sympathy has completely evaporated - Timber AKA Thomas AKA Lucy - please go away. And, if you feel that you can't go away and you decide to adopt yet another identity, please don't insult our intelligence by choosing email addresses that indicate your true identity.

This test of the umbrella should have been done on dark paper. Shown here is a test of a

parabolic curved reflector (see link). The purpose of the test is to show light as it

describes a light path. But the point of this reference below is to show that educated

students prefer to use DARK COLORED cloth or dark paper to show uneveness in a light

path or distribution. The link is here:

 

http://nths.newtrier.k12.il.us/academics/math/Connections/reflection/pararefl.htm

 

Ellis Vener's test uses a WHITE cardboard. This hides uneveness.

 

Mr. Vener never proved that he actually tested a zebra umbrella. His test output looks

identical to a white umbrella that he tested on another thread. Therefore, it appears that

the zebra umbrella was never tested. You see, the zebra umbrella should have a darker

shadow than a white umbrella, according to Balcar. But, this is not the case. The shadows

in Vener's test are identical to the eye.

 

I think that if Mr. Vener wants to represent Balcar's products, he should get their approval

for his tests firstly and directly from Balcar. As it is, Mr. Vener is misrepresenting a Zebra

Umbrella with a faulty test or possibly a fake test (testing a white umbrella). To make

Balcar liable through a misrepresentation is to harm Balcar's reputation. Balcar obviously

does not want to describe in words how this umbrella outputs. It is to Balcar's advantage

to rate this umbrella conservatively, not to make promises that can't be fullfilled.