Constant lighting vs. studio flash?

[rj__]

Brooks,

 

I greatly appreciate the fact that you share 20 plus years of lighting experience.

 

I have simply noticed that you and others have lots to say that does not appear to have any connection to the lights and application that I am talking about. To me, this is fundamental. For some reason, Weston made great photographs of food. To my way of thinking, those photographs are in a different league from anything that that I have seen in this forum. I don't know whether he used daylight, tungsten or a combination of both. I do know that those photographs were made without strobes. The same is true of a good many passable portraits by others well before strobes existed.

 

So here are some questions. Have you actually used Dedolights? Have you looked at their photometrics? Are you familiar with how the system works?

 

I don't ask these questions as a challenge. I ask because I have had nothing but good reports about these lights, because I have tested them for my application and because the criticisms about tungsten in this thread have nothing to do with the reality of using these lights. In other words, do any of the people who are expressing views about tungsten, negative or postive, have any experience with this brand? What is your experience with precision direction of light beams, with projection of light beams and with projection of gobos?

 

I'd really like to talk about three issues. The first is the quality of strobe and tungsten light (as distinct from their relative convenience), the second is fixtures, their efficiency and precision, and the third is the use of correction filters. These questions are worth talking about. But to have this discussion, it is necessary to go beyond a debate about whether the source of a light is daylight, strobe, tungsten or a mix.

[rj__]

Jonathan,

 

Sorry that you find my posts annoying. For myself, I have a pretty good sense of where the project that I'm involved inb is going and how the project is going to be realized. If I were as arrogant as you charge, I would say what I think about current food photography. As it happens, I am more interested in getting on with the book.

[garry edwards]

RJ,

 

Rich asked a simple question, and it is clear from his question that his subjects will include people.

 

Your own answer, equally obviously based on nothing more than theory, seems to be based on the premise that because, once upon a time, all studio photographers used tungsten lighting, and because an Italian gentleman has posted a good still life shot using tungsten, and because a salesman has recommended his own products, seems to be that the rest of the world is wrong about tungsten and that it is a universal pannacea for all lighting ills.

 

I'm glad that you're enjoying this 'discussion' - but really it's not a discussion at all, it's a number of answers to a question.

 

With the exception of your own contributions all of the detailed answers are from either talented amateur or successful and experienced professional photographers, none of whom has condemmed tungsten lighting but each has pointed out its shortcomings and has suggested to Rich that he would be better off with strobe lighting.

 

Doesn't that tell you something? It should.

[brooks short]

JR,

 

"Weston made great photographs of food"

 

Yes, it's true, Weston made some great photographs of peppers. That doesn't make him a food photographer, now does it? And it's true that he didn't use strobes but that could be because there were no strobes when he was shooting those peppers. Not really relevant to this discussion.

 

My understanding of Dedo lights is that they run off a transformer and are 12 volt tungsten 3200K lights (a similar electronic design to the lights used on lawns to illuminate walkways) with focusable lenses which makes them actually optical spots. Barndoors, shutters and patterned cookies can be used to break up the light. The heads run off a control box, actually the transformer, much like the power pack strobes and can be dialed down in power as needed.

 

RJ, this kind of versatility can be very useful on a small set. Because of their light weight and small size they can be positioned more conveniently than larger lights. Power output at 150 or 100 watts seems kind of low but on film with longer shutter speads and no motion of the subject they should work well. Because the light units themselves have lenses and are focusable, the actual amount of light hitting the set is more than you might think. I have heard of problems in using these lights with scanning digital backs because of flicker but that's not an issue here.

 

I use optical spots fitted with integral strobe heads as well as grid spots and fresnel spots, all designed for strobe. It's just as easy to create sharp edge beams, cukoloris effects, smooth and hard shadow transfer effects, diffused specular highlights and use gobos with these strobe fixtures as it is with any tungsten light, even dedos. Light is light. You learn how to control and manipulate it. it's not rocket science.

 

The difference between using strobe light with these modifyers and Dedo lights is that there's so much more light with the strobes.

 

Here's my experience with the three issues that you ask about:

 

1. Quality of strobe and tungsten light: Strobe is brighter. There is quality in quantity for still photography applications. Color balance is more consistent with strobe than tungsten because there is no need for long exposures and the reciprocity failure of color films. BW is not an issue in this regard.

 

2. Efficiency and precision of fixtures. You get what you pay for. I use Speedotron and their fixtures are very good with a lot of choice in how you shape the light. ProFoto, Balcar etc are also excellent.

 

3. The use of color correction filters. Gels are gels and filters are filters. I can use gels on my strobe heads easily. But I only need to do so when I need a special effect such as a warming gel to simulate warm sunlight or a color gel for a color background glow. For straight photography color gels aren't needed. In the studio I never have to use color correcting gels to fix a lighting problem using strobe.

 

Maybe this answers some of your questions?

[andre_napier]

I will try to simplify the answear to the original question. As some of you may

already know our Sun is a continues light sourse and we manage to get some

great shots under this light. Yes sometimes it is to bright and make you

squint your eyes, yes sometimes it is to hot and make you sweat, but also

there are days when our eyes feel just perfect on that slightly ovrecast day

when the light is about 5500K with the intensity of F8 at 1/125sec. With

continues lighting and lots of knowledge you can get this condition in the

studio everytime , day and night. When you may argue that you can get the

same with flash/strobes but it hardly the case. Flash/strobe duration of light is

so quick that all action is frozen. Contrary popular believe strobe are great for

product photography because this is a liveless matter with no motion to

capture. People are best photograph when they are in they natural state and

this is alive. Did you ever photograph a flying bird with a flash? Did you like

it?. Strobes are very convinient and have a great place in studio photography.

Every Kmart is using one and have no problem to sell their portraits. Pictures

look frozen and stage but I guess it is Ok. Unless your intention is to freeze

the auction of a moving model you are always getting a better mood

photography with a continues lighting. I own both. I have 2 Broncolor Grafit

packs, Octabank and all modifiers , but mostly relie on HMI ligting 1200/575/

400/200/ and 2x24W. My studio is 45x30 and 12' hight,

Who else uses HMI - well try Sante D'Orazio.

[olivier_koning]

Good points Andre. Lots of pros use HMI's. My friend is Patrick Demarchelier's assistant and they take them all over the world (recently Tahiti). I just wish I could afford them.

[garry edwards]

I fully respect Andre's right to use the tools of his choice and to hold the views he does, but it's a bit like saying that driving a Model T Ford is better than driving a modern car because Model T drivers don't get speeding tickets and they have more time to look at the scenery.

 

Outdated cars have their uses and so does HMI lighting, but I think I'll stick to my strobes and my BMW

[andre_napier]

To Garry

 

I also drive the newest BMW 7 every day because it is a wonderfull car that

performs. You are missing a point here. I do not use continues lighting

because it is vintage, I use it because I find out performed my Grafit packs.

Same way I find canon 1ds a cool thing to have , extremally convinient but I

do not use professionally because the image quality does not compare to my

Mamiya Rz. I made the point clear that in my opinion strobes are for freeze

action photography and as such are limited. Does not matter what you know

about lighting, you can not pass that point. HMI alows me to shoot as fast as

1/4000sek with my M645 camera or as slow as I choose to capture the

motion. If you are Ok with having all your studio work as a freeze action

photography than the strobes are great for you. If you want to move forward

past your limitation than I am happy to let you know that there are other

options. You may have to sell your BMW and buy a T Bird to afford nice HMI

set but than in the long run you may make an anual 7 figure from

photography.

Generally I have no time to enjoy the forum, same way like real carpenters do

not discuss their saws on internet, but I am down with cold at home and this is

all the fun I get today.

[ken_hughes4]

oh brother, let me get my leg out of the way of this pissing match.

[garry edwards]

Andre,

 

I am not missing your point, I understand it perfectly well but I do not subscibe to it.

 

The fact that it is a minority view does not make it right, any more than it makes it wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

Ken,

 

Andre and I are able to disagree with each other without being offensive. If you cannot say anything constructive or courteous please say nothing at all.

[andre_napier]

Garry

 

I agree, more people like conviniets versus versatility of use. They rather do

not miss any picture with their auto everything camera, than take one great

one with big manual, heavy and ackword camera. More people eat

hamburgers in Mc Donald than in my restaurant next door but by no means

does it make the big mac a bettter meat. Most poeople just settle down in life

with easy solutions and quick fix. Majority opinion rules and in this

democtratic process you got more votes so you won.

Thanks got majority of people do not control art, we will only leave some

inkjets prints for the next generation.

I am done here. Unless you can make a point of what is the better quality of

flash versus HMI and than I consider. Great talk.

[ken_hughes4]

guess what garry, no one here wants to hear about anyones bmw either. whats so constructive about that? let your images do the talking

[garry edwards]

Andre,

 

I read your profile. If you have read mine you will know that I am not one of those who likes auto-everything cameras or inkjet prints. Nor do I use my cameras like machine guns - I go for the considered approach, so in one respect at least we are similar.

 

This thread is not about HMI, nor deolights. It is a simple question from someone who wants to know whether constant lighting is better or worse than strobe for taking pictures of people.

 

Your arguments seem to be based on your particular style, and there is nothing wrong with that, but IMO they do not take Rich Taylor much further forward.

 

I use flash because it produces the consistent quality and control of power that I need most of the time for most of my subjects. Continuous lighting can be used when it is more suitable, but this is rare. Most of my work is advertising or commercial and most of it is still life, or at least products that include models. Still life is not the same as people photography, it is just a different discipline, it is not inferior as you seem to believe it to be.

 

I accept that HMI lighting is versatile but then so is flash. I'm talking here about flash that can adjust over 6 stops (not counting ND filters) and so can be positioned exactly where required and at the required aperture. In my line of work, movement blur isn't needed very often, when it is I use tungsten lighting.

 

If I felt that my clients would be happy to meet the much higher cost of photography with HMI lighting I would use it (and wouldn't need to sell my car to get it) but I don't, and nor do most people in my line of business.

 

Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that the majority view is always right (there are plenty of examples of this in political voting) but it does follow that because the vast majority of studio photographers choose to use flash, the technology is very well developed and the light itself has extremely consistent colour and output throughout the range. A very wide range of modifiers are available, these can be used to produce just about any type of creative effect. These are the main reasons for my personal choice, others have given their own reasons (which I agree with) above.

[andre_napier]

Great points and very articulat explanation. I agree with you. Flash is great

tool in lots of applications. The technology is outstanding. The color

temperature stability perfect with most packs. The ability to dim uncomparable

with anything else. The price well worth every penny. I wish to have 6 stops

control insted of 6 diffrent heads. I wish for my heads to weight 2 lbs. versus

35 lbs. I wish my light were cold as flash. It is all true. For most people flash is

absolutly the way to go. It is very eassy to master and produces good results.

You see I am the person who carries my Sinar P2 8x10 outdoors because I

believe it to be a notch better and ten fold less confortable. For that notch I will

go a long way.

By no means do I thing that still life is inferior to people photography. I respect

every field. I love photography and any form and shape. I am one of the few

who is blessed to be paid for something they would do for free anyways.

Lots of respect for you and your work

Andre Napier.

[andre_napier]

To Garry!

 

Your porfolio says you like fashion work, see mine at

www.MissObiektywu.com

[olivier_koning]

Andre,

 

Any chance you could get me Anna's phone number? ;-)

[rj__]

Brooks,

 

Once again, I appreciate your observations.

 

I understand the distinction that you draw between commercial food photography and the kind of still life work that Weston and others have done. In the case of the book that I'm working on, the chef and I have decided that we want a look that would probably not meet the approval of an art director whose job is to sell cola or catsup. I'm not suggesting that the people who do food photography don't know what they are doing. I'm saying only that we want a look that is not current in most commercial photography of food. In other words, for my purposes I would indeed consider Weston a food photographer.

 

In case you or others are interested, I'll make some observations on Dedolight as a product. Your comments about the power source are basically correct, except that there is a bewildering array of choices. The fixtures are designed to be used both in the field and in a studio. As a result, they can be run off a 12 volt battery (body pack, car battery or cigarette lighter, etc.) or off an AC current. In the latter case, you need to use a 12 or 24 volt power supply. As you say, these are essentially transformers. The 12 volt box powers up to four heads of up to 100w. The 24 volt box powers up to three heads of up to 150w. Alternatively, you can use a box that powers only one light. This single box is available in two forms. It can be separate from the light or it can be integrated with the light. If it is integrated, the light cannot be run off a battery. The choice between a box for each light and a box for three or four lights depends on the answers to two questions. Do you want to power each light separately or do you want to run the lines for two to four lights to a single box? Secondly, do you want to use the lights in both Europe and America? The boxes that power several lights can be used in both parts of teh world. The boxes for individual lights are current-specific. Both types of boxes have built-in dimming capability. Also, they can be operated at 3200 or 3400K. There are also fixtures, such as the one that takes up to 650w lamps, that plug directly into a wall outlet. The company also makes a series of HMI lights.

 

As you note, these are focusable spot lights. They are used by cinematographers, videographers and still photographers to light small areas. They are suitable for lighting small sets in which the subject is a person or an inanimate object. The efficiency of the lights, in relation to their wattage, is interesting. The beam can be focused with a good deal of precision. The boxes and fixtures are very compact and quite lightweight, and the fixtures are built like a tank.

 

The company offers a projection attachment that can be used with lenses of various focal lengths. For some applications (e.g. with gobos), this is useful. In my case, I was particularly interested in device used with the projector that the company calls an "eye attachment". Apparently, this was designed in response to a request from a cinematographer who wanted a particular quality of light on an actor's eyes. Basically, this attachment allows one to project light on a small surface area so that the light merges very, very gradually with the surrounding light. If the surrounding light is fairly bright, the result is an extremely subtle highlight. If the surrounding light is fairly dark, the result is a very soft transition from the highlight to the darker area. I know that Broncolor makes a projection attachment. If other manufacturers of strobes do as well, I'd be interested in learning about it.

 

A comment unrelated to Brooks's post: In an earlier part of this thread, someone made some comments about salesmen self-interestedly pushing their products. When I was in New York a couple of weeks ago, I spoke with sales people at several New York stores that specialize in photographic equipment. One of these stores, Flash Clinic, does nothing but sell and rent lighting equipment, both strobe and continuous. At the Photo Show, I spoke with several manufacturer's representatives. Pretty much throughout, the sales people that I met were professional, helpful in discussions about my needs and even-handed in their evaluation of equipment available on the market. The company from which I purchased Dedolights actually dissuaded me from purchasing certain of their products on the ground that I would not need them, or should evaluate the need when I'm further into my project, and actually recommended that I purchase a particular fixture made by a competitor. I did not find that sales people at either the retail or manufacturer's level were "pushing" anything. Nor did I find that they were expresing absolutist views. They were, like Brooks in his posts in this thread, more sophisticated than that.

 

In December, the chef and I will start the process of doing the food photographs. Thank God, we're going to have some initial help from a NY product photographer. If the Dedolights work, great. If they don't, then we'll move to strobe. Either way, I'll probably post something about our experiences in this forum.

[rj__]

Brooks,

 

I forgot to comment on your point about Dedolights and digital cameras. There is an outfit called The Foundation for Latin American Anthropological Research that has an internet site called www.digital-photography.org. I don't know anything about these people one way or the other. They use Dedolights and the site contains comments about them at http://www.digital-photography.org/Dedolighttungstenstudiolighting/Dedo_Weigert_Dedolight.html. The comments raise the question of whether the transformer boxes, as distinct from the on-board transformers, can cause electrical interference with a digital camera. Because I'm using a 4x5 camera for my project, the question doesn't matter. If I were going to use Dedolights for digital work, I would probably ask Dedolight about this directly.

[rj__]

Garry,

 

I'd like to add that you are entitled to your opinions. If you want to trash people who sell photographic equipment, you have the right to do it, but your comments don't fit with my recent experience in New York. Similarly, when you create a straw man from the statements of a person on this forum, you are not doing yourself credit. On your own website, you describe yourself as a "hack photographer". I wouldn't know about that, but you need to think a little about your propensity for attacking other people, whether they are salesmen or people who make photographs. Given your comments about New York salesmen, and you blatent attack against me, it is pretty amazing that you upraided someone else for their lack of civility. Your insistence on talking about your economic status, in terms of what car you own, unfortunately said plenty about your attitude. I wouldn't care about this, except that I gather that you have some status in this forum. In particular, if you are a moderator, you need to think very carefully, and so do the people who let you spout off.

[jonathan_brewer1]

I made the mistake of checking back on this thread. I had no intention of getting back into this, but there are some things that need to be said. Let's be frank and honest and to the point about some things.

 

One of the reasons I like participating in this forum is that I love lighting, I am not friends with the moderators but I respect them, one of the reasons I respect them is that they take the risk of showing their work and have taken the time to do these lighting themes gratis.

 

'Name dropping' is below the belt bullshit, any 'brother photographer' who has worked at his/her craft is to be respected and not demeaned or dimisnished by comparisons, the only thing that counts is that we're all trying hard at our craft, the issue of how Partick Demarchelier stacks up against anybody here in terms of technique is being used to some diminish what some folks here have to say, and how he uses his gear as an experienced photographer was never the issue.

 

RJ, you basically set the tenor and tone of things in this thread by posturing and entrenching yourself into this position....................... 'One of the unfortunate things about Photo.net is that we do not tend to get the benefit of the experience of film makers and videographers. One of the results seems to be a belief on the part of a lot of photo.net participants, raised to a level that sounds like an article of religion, that continuous lighting (invariably called "hot lighting") is BAD, and that strobes are GOOD. When I was in the process of making my own decision about whether to go strobe or continuous, one of the things that struck me was the views of the lighting technicians with whom I spoke. They brought a balance to the discussion about the pros and cons that you just can't find on photo.net. Personally, I'd love to see a photo.net forum about cinematography and videography.'...............................................Now this is a 'strawman'......................You basically insult and trash everybody else by the not so veiled suggestion that nobody knows what they're talking about except you.

 

Now in spite of that everybody swallowed their ego, ate that statement and responded to you with civility, but by this time you had made this about you instead of Rich Taylor and all the folks who are watching this thread who happen to be in their formative stage of growth in their learning curves who need useful info to grow.

 

This happens all the time, and this time it was you who initiated this 'battle' by entrenching yourself in an adversary position and then 'poking and jabbing' folks by the above statement whom you ASSUMED HAD ANOTHER STANCE, BUT WHO IN FACT DIDN'T.

 

Now when folks gave you their honest opinions you responded with bombast, you used words like 'tiresome'..........'condemn'..........'bias'....................'ridiculous'

I don't know if you know it or not but you get snide and insult people and the get righteous when they question you about some of your grand sweeping generalizations.

 

I'm 55, I think the moderators are around the same age, if you're as old as us, you ought to know better, and if you're young then I'm here to tell you that your wrong about what everybody else knows.

 

Hot lights, tungsten lights have been around since the beginning of time, HMI has been around 20-30yrs, very little of this stuff is new technology, .............but you talk as if everybody but you is a turnip that just fell off a produce truck.

 

I'm saying this because it's a shame whenever this happens in front of folks just starting out, because they don't need a battle of egos, they need useful information, so before you start some more heat with Garry Edwards or anybody else, you need to honest with yourself about starting all this unpleasantness, and perhaps we can squash all the acrimony and get back to the business of sharing info with those that need it.

 

Now if things are going to continue to get ugly, so be it, I can deal with it, I'd like to think that you by virtue of being a photographer, you should have the capacity of being able to see your part in starting this and perhaps recognizing that, take a part in ending it.

 

 

[olivier_koning]

"'Name dropping' is below the belt bullshit, any 'brother photographer' who has worked at his/her craft is to be respected and not demeaned or dimisnished by comparisons, the only thing that counts is that we're all trying hard at our craft, the issue of how Partick Demarchelier stacks up against anybody here in terms of technique is being used to some diminish what some folks here have to say, and how he uses his gear as an experienced photographer was never the issue".

 

I was simply pointing out the fact that experienced portrait photographers such as Demarchelier and others do use continuous lighting, as well as strobes. I'm not sure how you imply that it is "demeaning"...

[garry edwards]

R.J.,<br>

 

This is getting silly.<p> You have made a number of statements that are simply not true. <br>Nobody has condemmned tungsten lighting.<br>I did not "trash people who sell photographic equipment", my only reference to people who sell photographic products was "and because a salesman has recommended his own products"<br>Nor do I describe myself as a hack photographer on my own website. This statement is on my PN profile.<br>Nor have I, nor anyone else, made derogatory comments about other photographers who use tungsten lighting. Both Patrick Demarchelier and Andre Napier are very talented photographers who work in specialised areas. I thought that Andre made some very good points about HMI lighting. I felt that his comments were off-topic and said so. Although English is not his first language he understood that perfectly well.<br>I don't think that I made any statements about my economic status, all I did was to draw an analogy between old cars, which have have their adherents, and modern cars. Here in the UK, BMW cars are more expensive to buy and run than many but not outrageously so.<br>I have not attacked you, blatently or otherwise. I feel that you have made some valid points, it's simply that I have tried to add a little balance to your opinions.<br>I asked someone to be constructive and courteous rather than offensive because, as one of the forum moderators, it is my responsibility to do so. If you feel that I have acted improperly, please feel free to complain to the PN administrators.<p>Can I make a suggestion please? Read the question from Rich Taylor. He wants to know whether people feel that constant lighting is more or less suitable than studio flash for people photography.<br>The question is simple and so is the answer. To some extent you have 'hijacked' this thread with your comments on the suitability of a specialised form of lighting for a specialised purpose that has nothing to do with the original question. I don't feel that anyone here has been offensive towards your opinions, after all you are entitled to them, and nor has anyone said that your opinions are wrong. All that anyone has said is that you are wrong to misquote people and to attack them as you have.<p>For the avoidance of any doubt, let me make it clear now that I think you are wrong to go off-topic in the way that you have, not because I disagree with your opinions but because I feel that Rich and any other people new to studio photography, who may not understand the differences between 'ordinary' tungsten lighting and more specialised, expensive equipement, may be confused by what you say. If you want to ask questions or offer opinions about HMI or Deo lighting please feel free to do so, that is what the Lighting Forum is about - BUT IN A THREAD ABOUT THAT SUBJECT and not in a thread about taking portraits.

[brooks short]

It seems to me that this thread has wandered away from the topic of strobe and continuous light so it might be best to just move on.

 

Any more posts about who's friend uses what equipment, famous photographers and theis assistants, things the salesman told me, religious statements of one kind of light being the one and only true light etc. are just not relevant to the topic at hand and will be deleted. Above all, no more personal attacks will be allowed.

 

As far as which car is better than another car well......all cars suck. Motorcycles are better in every way ! #8^)

 

What would be welcome in this "discussion" are posts from people who have actually used the lighting that they're talking about. With example photos posted to illustrate their points and technique. Now that would be informative. We might actually learn something.

 

RJ, please start another thread about dedo lights when you have some examples of shots for your cookbook to post. I would personally be very interested in the kind of effects that you've achieved with the Dedos and the techniques that you used and the style of lighting that you have decided to pursue.

 

Let's play nice for the rest of this thread.

[jonathan_brewer1]

I was the first one in this thread to mention HMI lights, in my reference to what you can use outside, on top of this no one else has said anything against them EXCEPT that they aren't their preferred lighting system,..............refering to what other people use is perfectly reasonable in a discussion like this, and then sharing with us some insights you gained from how they use their gear is also perfectly reasonable.

 

I stand on what I said, the folks that are actually here sharing their time and experience should be respected, if you had said, 'with all due respect to your position, this person uses this and this is why', that moves along the discussion, the photographers mentioned are very talented, but just mentioning famous names, with absolutely no specifics doesn't further the discussion and is a 'slap in the face' to the folks who are ACTUALLY HERE and HARD AT WORK GIVING YOU WHAT THEY KNOW.

 

What does you mentioning some famous photographers name and the fact that you're pals with his asst. say, it really doesn't add to the discussion, doesn't validate one position or the other, the funny thing is THERE WAS NO DISAGREEMENT ABOUT HMI lights, that somehow was lost on you, ERGO it's just 'namedropping', and the way it was used here was essentially 'whatever you say, "so and so" uses it',........................now if that isn't clear, fine, but that is all I'm going to say on the matter, you'll just have to deal with it.

 

The moderators have also spelled out what was going wrong with this thread, and it's actually Rich Taylors thread, and the folks who are listening to this even though they may not be posting. The rest of this thread should be devoted to them.

 

This thread was no big deal, shouldn't have raised the blood pressure of a gnat, there was no need to 'square off' in some kind of fued, BECAUSE NOBODY WAS AGAINST EITHER LIGHTING SYSTEM, folks just told you why they don't use a particular system, it shoud've have been accepted for just that, you can 'take it or leave it', which everybody knows before they post on these forums.

 

I've said everything I have to say and my participation in this thread has ended, you can argue with what I've said, but you'll have to argue with yourself, hopefully whatever else is said in this thread is directed in a positive manner to the right people, Rich Taylor and the folks that need to know.

[rj__]

Brooks,

 

You may or may not recall a post in which I asked for opinions about the relative merits of Matthews and Avenger stands. You sat on the fence, saying that it was a question of whether one preferred cars or motorcyles, a distinction that you see, or said you saw, as one of function vs. form. Am I right that you have now shown your true colours, in the following sentence: As far as which car is better than another car well......all cars suck. Motorcycles are better in every way ! #8^) :)

 

As I said earlier, I'll be delighted to post some stuff about my experience with this lighting system. So far, we've only done some tests. Late this month, or early next month, it will get down to actual business. In addition to being used for photographs of food, they lights will probably be used for some photographs of the chef. If I ditch them for Profoto, or choose to mix them with Profoto, people on this forum will be among the first to know (second only to Visa).