Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,926   Posts: 1,585,101   Online: 849
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    I agree that Paul Buff gives comprehensive, good information about their own flash units and it would be good if others followed their example. I don't have any of their units but some of my friends do, and they appear to be excellent value for money.

    The thing is that at a claimed 42 lumens per watt they aren't really any more efficient than units from manufacturers that do not inflate their ratings. That's where the BS creeps in. They do not explain what the 'effective watt seconds' is based on. What is the origin of the 17.5 lumens per watt efficiency that they use to calculate their effective watt second ratings? A 60 W household incandescent lamp? - because that's what it is equivalent to.

    One of the ways that manufacturers can improve the efficiency of a flash tube is to operate it so that it produces a higher correlated colour temperature than required, then reduce the CCT with a filter. This is quite normal practice.

    One could make a comparison with dedolights. Thanks to superior optics, a 650 W tungsten dedo is more efficient than a 650 W Arri Junior - what you could call the industry standard for tungsten fresnel instruments. Dedo do not call it a 1200 W effective, they call it a 650 W.

    Best,
    Helen
    Last edited by Helen B; 01-28-2007 at 11:03 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12
    raucousimages's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    825
    Thanks for the info.

    I called my old boss about the WS meter I remembered. It measured WS of input for strobes on runways to see if they were within specs prior to instalation. The output measurment was a simple Pass/Fail. Not a measure of the amount of light but just did it fire and at the right time. We were bidding on a contract for the rebuild of the battery packs.
    DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

  3. #13
    JosBurke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    KY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    463
    Images
    9
    Rather off the specific subject but Paul Buff related and my 2 cents -- I've been using White-Lightning monolights for years--never a failure as to test Pauls reputation as the best in the business regarding customer service but when they're x/2400 came out I ordered 3 ( I just couln't afford the x3200 then) as they were offering a holiday deal back then but apparently Paul was having a problem getting the needed parts as they called me back 4 days later and explained their parts issue and shipped their x/3200 (They're top of the line light) in it's stead for that same initial bargain price (all at their desire to get my lights to me in a timely manner and the upgrade was 100% their idea) --now that is customer service and the output from the x/3200 come's in really handy now that I shoot 8x10 and 11x14 too !!
    I highly recommend Paul Buff/White-Lightning products--I am not famiiar with the Alien Bee's in use---my x/3200's still work perfectly --impressive!!
    Joseph Burke

  4. #14
    Paul Sorensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,895
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by JosBurke View Post
    I highly recommend Paul Buff/White-Lightning products--I am not famiiar with the Alien Bee's in use---my x/3200's still work perfectly --impressive!!
    Thanks for the recommendation. I have been wondering about White Lightening products, and I guess the sense that they were trying to pass something off with their effective watt seconds was making me leery. While I do agree that they have great info, and that other manufacturers don't, I still think that there is something basically misleading about the implications of their effective watt seconds rating. They are implying that other products don't produce the same light when apparently that is not entirely the case (I guess you have to believe Helen here, but I do) It won't keep me from considering their products, but I don't think it is a good practice.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin