phillipmarcovallentin

<p>What a rig !</p>

<p>One more (short) clip with Nicks amazing Pentagram rig:<br>

<a href="

<br>

Enjoy ;-)<br>

Marco/</p>

 

In this months issue of the German magazine ProfiFoto, you can study an in-depth comparison test between Brieses Focus, Broncolors copy the "Para", and the large 7 fot reflector from ProFoto.

The article is in German.

 

To anyone searching for a slightly more scientific answer in the major differences between the Focus and Para, Briese use a linear flashtube, very similar to a ProFotos StickLight or Brons Litestick, where Bron use a circular lightsource; the Ringflash P.

 

Adapters are now also available to drive the Briese Focus from other generators than Brieses own, who some users find slightly difficult to operate.

Upon checking the best price of the Canon EOS 5D kit (incl. a 24-105 f/4 lens)

in Sapporo (Japan), I just found out that two different versions are available:

The newest "2007 version", that sells for 368.000 yen,

and a "2005 version" that sell for only 228.000 yen ( = 38 % less ! ).

Does anybody know what the differens is between the 2005 and the 2007 model?

Best regards,

Marco/

I have enjoyed shooting with the 28-80 f/2,8-4 (L) for more than a decade. Too me, the only drawback, was its rather high weight, but this was indeed a minor problem.

I found the picture quality quite amazing. The 28-80 was my "baby", and allthough a zoom, my main lens.

Annother small problem was the rotating front element. If you were using a Cokin P-filter holder, any re-focusing would slightly rotate your filter. Not very smart if the filter in question was a linear polarizer!

My "baby" (along with the rest of my lenses and camera equipemt) was just stole by trick theives on the Airport train in Amsterdam (!), and I took this opportunity to look at the 24-70 f/2,8.

Some (Danish) idiot, once claimed this to be "much" wider! But I honestly don't see much improvement from 28 to 24 mm...

The fixed low f/2,8 is nice, and the non-rotating front element, means that linear polarisers can be used without too much hassel.

But it doesn't have the same picture quality! It's also cheaper, and lighter, and obviousely of lesser quality!

For the best picture qulaity, I would deffinitely go for the old 28-80 f/2,8-4 (L) USM. They pop up now and again as second hand "bargains". The last second-hand one I spottet, was selling for VERY close to the price of a brand new 24-70 f/2,8 !

Good lenses are heavy - and expensive.

Dear all.

 

Elincas D-lite series are indeed very lightweight portable.

They are slightly smaler and lighter than their "bigger brother", the FX 400.

In my eyes, the D-Lite ranges biggest problem, is lack of cooling! This is off cause intentional, and a way to keep down cost to a VERY attractive level.

The D-lites would work fine, for not-too-heavy/quick work, using brollies etc. But I wouldn't recommend using them with a snoot or with honeycombs with diffusers.

For safety reasons, the D-lites have a build-in thermal cut-off function, but if your budget allows, DO got for FX 400s with fan cooling.

 

BTW:

I have a mod for the fan inside FX 400s, so that it runs rather quiet up until 40 degress centigrade, and power up, until using full speed, when the temperature inside the housing is around 70 degress celsius.

Anyone interested in this mod, can drop me a mail...

 

Best of luck!

 

Marco/

Interesting!

 

Marcus - from Briese - is VERY kind and service minded, and have invited me to Hamburg to study their range, and to tell me a bit more about the Bron-Breise controversy! As soon as I return from Hamburg, I will post more info here...

 

But if Briese is good enough for Playboy photographer Steven Wayda, then I'm pretty certain, that it is good enough for me too ;-)

This is a very interesting thread.

What happened with the Briese/Bron controversy?

When studying Claude Brons range of Para reflectors, I noticed that you can now get the Para, the Para FF and the Para FB. I understand that these are different ways of obtaining focus (front/back), but could this also be ways of legally getting out of a patent infringment lawsuit?

 

It is interresting that Briese use a form of sticklight to illuminate the Focus.

Apparently Bron is going in an other direction, now using the new Ringflash "P" to illuminate the Para FB.

Does anybody have any comments on this?

 

best regards,

Marco/

Hello Brian.

I justed stumbled across your question.

In my eyes, the big advantage of Hensel (over Pro and Bron) is their "Octa Sun Haze RF 90" softbox attachemt.

This is not merely a piece of frosted glass, but an etire little softboks, with a variety of diffusers. With this attachment, you are indeed increasing the square/area of the light, and therby changing its quality from hard to softer.

As it is probably not in the renting program either (!), you might have to buy it! Bbut you could still keep a low profile, only renting the actual ringflash unit when needed.

The optimum operating range would be around 90cm, but still OK for som type of portraits and fashion shots.

The next step up, using near-radial light for a fashion shoot, is Brons PARA 220 FB "umbrealla". This wil now work with a focusadjustable ringlight at its apex. They also do a 330cm diameter version - but it's not so funny on a windy beach ;-)

 

Best reegards,

Marco/<div></div>

I want to improve my "full (body-) lengt" lighting technique.

I have enjoyed using two Profoto 3'x4' softbokses (as frontlights),

but am aware of the textbook recommendations, stating the

lightsource should be at least as big as my model ( - or slightly

bigger?).

Would I be able to see any realistic difference, if I was using the

larger 4'x6' bokses instead? Or is this purely academic?

(my main reason for choosing the Profoto ranger, over for example

Wafer, is that Profoto accepts grids, to modify dispersion)

Best regards,

Phillip Marco Vallentin/

Dear Damian.

 

What types of light modifiers where you thinking of buying for your new studio? Will you use parabolic reflectors ("Beauty-dishes") or are you going more in the softboks/striplight direction?

 

First I would start to paint the room. 50 % black, and 50% white (walls AND ceiling). Lets hear if anybody else agrees with me on this one?

This would leave you with a black, and a white end, for different types of shots.

 

I'll get back to you with more detals later.

Until then, happy painting ;-)

Marco/

My very first softboks, was the "Prolinca Portalite 90". I even got

the optional "translucent refractor" for it. But I still feel the

box does not throw a truly even light. There are indeed a very

visible hotspot.

 

I was then thinking of changing the outer diffuser ( - in a

Portalite, there is only one!) to a better one.

I have looked a the Rosco range, and I am now considering the "3027

Tought White Diffusion" or the "3001 Light Tough Rolux" (maybe even

the "216 White Diffusion").

 

Have any of you gentlemen tried this?

Which one should I go for ?

I would really appreciate a piece of good advice, as I am not yet

able to by a better box (and hireing, is a bit of a bitch here in

Denmark!)

 

Best regards, from Copenhagen,

Phillipo Marco Vallentin/

...and using a medium priced digital camera, like the Canon EOS 20D, is much cheaper than boxes Polaroids!

When it looks accepable on your digital, I find that it will also look fine on transparenzy film, since both formats, have very similar (narrow!) exposure latitudes.

 

Marco/

Hello James.

I know exactly what your problem is, since I have also been using two Prolinca 250s.They were my very first studioflash units, and I have learned a great deal, using these two little inexpensive units. But soon I will have to trade them in, for new heads with more precise control.

 

I was recently recommended to buy a pair of Elin 500 Classics. I really liked the idea of a stepless output over three f-stops. But then it ocured to me, that the lowest setting of the Elin 500s is 125 ws, EXACTLY the same as the lowest setting on our Prolinca 250s! Keep that in mind, when you go hunting for new gear. We sould look for compacts with a minimum output of about 25 ws (Elinchrom BX/FX 400) or 37,5 (Profoto ComPactPlus 600).

 

On the softbox issue, many (among them Stephen A. Dantzig, writer of: "Fashion and Glamour Photography" on Amherst Media)feel the correct working distance, is equal to the hypotenuse of the box.

A 3' by 4' box has a hypotenuse of 5', which is then the theoretical correct working distance. A 22" square box, has a hypotenuse of only 31". If you move your box much further away than this, it will act more like a point source, and you will loose the "wrap around" effect.

 

Best of luck to you ;-)

Phillip Marco Vallentin/

I would say, that in a fashion shot, the focus is less on the model, and more on the clothes or lifestyle.

We might need annother category for upload of pictures, which are not "nude" and not really "fashion"?

I would surgest an "erotic" category.

Does anybody agree?

 

Regards from Copenhagen ;-)

Marco/

Be pretty careful, but steam might work, depending off cause on exactly what type of paper background you use. I bought myself a professional Bosch steamer (for removing old wallpaper), and use this for both cloth and paper backgounds. But DO be carefull, as the paper cannot stand as much steam as cloth. Also make certain to ventilate the studio well. The steam will make floors very slippery and can damage your equipment (and contribute to GREAT electric shocks, if you don't take care...). Hire one for the week-end, before you consider buying! Best of luck, Marco/

I agree with Steve Hovland. I used a wired remote. It's not so bad - if you have a sense of humor! - and I feel much more prepared for the model, once I'm on the right track with the lights. I'm also cheaper and can pose 24/7 all month, without stange reacuring behaviour ( - sorry Ladies!). Best of luck to you, and have fun. Fun is a great way of learning... Marco/

Please don't laugh, but i have succesfully used bakingpaper! You might wanna use a double layer, but is cheap, usually in the kitchen drawer, and can normally withstand up to 220 degrees centigrade.