thomas_redding

Gentlemen:

Lucy R. introduced me to photo.net in a computer center recently. She is an experienced

photographer who has location experience. I am very, very impressed with her! She is

the one who showed me how to input and to become involved on photo.net only a short

time ago! God bless her, but now i wonder!

But she warned me that there would be persons who would spend their time spinning their

wheels gossiping. Then Garry popped up. When I read Garry E.'s from the U.K.'s message

that he likes to talk about people he admits to not knowing or meeting, I realized that the

internet and photo.net could be filled with persons that have a malicious manner, a

malicious intent, and he, so far, seems to have nothing to say about Zebra Umbrellas in

addition! Perhaps their photography phone isn't ringing and this is all they have:

malicious gossip to fill their void! Garry is creating "straw men" and then attacking them!

This is not healthy behavior! Pass the voo doo doll to Garry!

I told about 4 other people about photo.net while sitting at the computer center, a great

place that has about 90 computers all hooked-up to the internet, all for free usage! I

would hate to think that I have caused these other people harm by this referral. Now I am

thinking the internet is not so safe, not even a photo site! Is Garry going to invade their

privacy and life?

I would advise anyone to not use their own real name on this or any other site. Make up a

"handle" to protect yourself. The potential for trouble is high from people whom have low

self esteem and whom would make it a personal project to make enemies rather than have

friends.

Why would you want to spend your time making enemies rather than friends? ---Well,

because your feelings are hurt from something in the past and you just have to get even

with all these 'expert' strangers, all these people who try hard to develop confidence in

themselves! Hey, I'd rather have the friends; its more comfortable. But everyone has to

choose their own way of life!

There are too many people like the person above who have nothing to do but remember

their daily low self esteem (and to subsequently attack others); and they need to spend

time complaining that 'so and so' is an expert. Oh, Come on. This is cry baby stuff.

Real professional photographers don't sit at a computer screen and broadcast to the whole

world their intermost insecurities! Whimpering on the internet....you give youself the

reputation you earn. You should keep that 'stuff to tell your closest friend, or therapist.

But you see, there are lonely people out there who have no friends to confide and find

comfort with! They attacked them all away long ago! So now they got this screen and a

keypad!

The world may not be a secure place, but why oh why make it more insecure by making

enemies, not friends! I mean this is illogical!

I checked out Garry's comment on www.google.com for this person's name and I did not

find one instance where this poster uses the word "expert" to name himself or in some

other sort of description of his services: Not one! You can do the search for yourself on

www.google.com. So, in conclusion, Garry E. is on my fail list. He has lost credibility in

my view of his words.

And no Garry, don't put me on your voo doo doll list. Save your money to buy lenses and

advertising, not "straw men" dolls.

Time for dinner. Goodbye all. Over and out.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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.