Do AB's make me see pink, or is it my imagination?

[Wilt]

Just added a link to a post by Leo (PaceAce) in my prior post.

[TMR Design]

Originally Posted by Wilt

Just added a link to a post by Leo (PaceAce) in my prior post.

Wilt,

It might be good to link to this thread from the other that got this started again. Just a suggestion.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by TMR Design

Wilt,

It might be good to link to this thread from the other that got this started again. Just a suggestion.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...03#post4626603


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...97#post8240497

[bzimmermann]

Originally Posted by TMR Design

Sure but it's next to impossible to convince the non-believers Wilt. No matter what discussion we ever have about the topic it is dismissed so quickly because we're just a bunch of Buff bashers. I give up on this one. I don't have Bees and haven't experienced the problem since dumping them and that's all I care about.

But you are TMR ! Just look through your posts. Every single post you do about Alien Bees you are trying to find a fault wih the company (see below ).
You act as a kid who just got his first SLR that happen to be Nikon and he goes to a Canon forum and start trolling how Nikon is so much superior to Canon. Just look at the threads that you guys do not touch - for example
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=632774
Tons of useful information, millions of pictures and just pleasure to read.
But everry thread abot ABs where you guys appear is turned into a battleground. I do not know what issues you have with Paul Buff but your hatred can be felt very well.


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...3&postcount=82
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...2&postcount=72
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...6&postcount=48
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...4&postcount=55
Next is the funniest one. A desperate attempt to find a fault with ABs but the responce made me laugh for an half an hour
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...postcount=2111
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...99&postcount=8

[TMR Design]

Originally Posted by bzimmermann

But you are TMR ! Just look through your posts. Every single post you do about Alien Bees you are trying to find a fault wih the company (see below ).
You act as a kid who just got his first SLR that happen to be Nikon and he goes to a Canon forum and start trolling how Nikon is so much superior to Canon. Just look at the threads that you guys do not touch - for example
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=632774
Tons of useful information, millions of pictures and just pleasure to read.
But everry thread abot ABs where you guys appear is turned into a battleground. I do not know what issues you have with Paul Buff but your hatred can be felt very well.


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...3&postcount=82
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...2&postcount=72
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...6&postcount=48
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...4&postcount=55
Next is the funniest one. A desperate attempt to find a fault with ABs but the responce made me laugh for an half an hour
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...postcount=2111
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...99&postcount=8

You make me sick., You defend your King Luap and make stupid comments more than any one else I've seen in this forum. If you spend half as much time learning about photography as you do searching my posts and quoting me you might actually know something. You're the definition of loser. Enjoy, my friend. You have nothing to offer anyone here. No one cares about your posts and your advice is nonsense. SO go crawl into your hole and get your head and fist back up inside Paul Buff's a** where you're most comfortable. Bye now!

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by bzimmermann

But you are TMR ! Just look through your posts. Every single post you do about Alien Bees you are trying to find a fault wih the company (see below ).
You act as a kid who just got his first SLR that happen to be Nikon and he goes to a Canon forum and start trolling how Nikon is so much superior to Canon. Just look at the threads that you guys do not touch - for example
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=632774
Tons of useful information, millions of pictures and just pleasure to read.
But everry thread abot ABs where you guys appear is turned into a battleground. I do not know what issues you have with Paul Buff but your hatred can be felt very well.

If Robert had his knickers in a twist about AB, he could have done greater damage simply by publishing results of color balance measurements when the topic was consistent power output comparisons of about a dozen flashes. He withheld that, as he knew the controversy it would create just wasn't worth the grief that would come about. I have nothing against AB, I never owned one to come to any conclusion about it, one way or another. There is enough information on the web, and now from Buff himself, on the topic of color tint that no one need blame Robert for a vendetta. I linked to some of those threads in my earlier post.

[Wilt]

Robert, down boy!

[bobbyz]

Maybe both sides are correct. Maybe older bees had worse problems and the later builds are much better. It could happen. Maybe they changed some component, you never know.

If I get some time one of these days I will test my 2 AB800s and 2AB400s and post some results. My initial tests with one of my Ab800 weren't bad at all unlike some other folks.

And I wish folks just showed there test results and let them speak for themselves. I haven't seen anything from OP in this regard.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by bobbyz

Maybe both sides are correct. Maybe older bees had worse problems and the later builds are much better. It could happen. Maybe they changed some component, you never know.

If I get some time one of these days I will test my 2 AB800s and 2AB400s and post some results. My initial tests with one of my Ab800 weren't bad at all unlike some other folks.

And I wish folks just showed there test results and let them speak for themselves. I haven't seen anything from OP in this regard.

I think that often people don't have a clue about how to test (or maybe they lack the goodies used for testing), so they immediately turn to words rather than making any attempt at visualization. The internet makes discussions of this type so much better than 20 years ago, via illustration!

The Buff statement about color drift is fairly recent, so that is not likely to be true of old products while not true of new products.

I would put a 18% gray card and a white sheet of paper next to each other; ideally an intermediate light gray, too. Meter off the 18% gray card, shoot the three densities in the frame, first at full power then at minimum flash power, adjusting either ISO or aperture for the change in power output from the flash. It will become obvious, in the side by side, when the white or gray take on any discoloration due to WB color temp drift or magenta-green color drift.

[bobbyz]

Did some more testing using AB800 in photoflex medium SB. Here are the results at different power settings. I just moved the slider to appropriate position and measured with L-358 to make sure I was within 2/10 of my target. Used WB/Expsoure page from my Scott Kelby book as a target.

WB was fixed to 5500 on my 1dmk2. Lens used was 70-200mm f2.8 non IS. No WB change in processing. Shot in RAW and converted to jpegs using C1LE.

I should have made it go down - Sorry.



At lowest setting, I have 2 shots on the right called 1/32 -1 and 1/32 -2.

Things I noticed:

From full power to all the way tao 1/16 power, pop after pop, power was consistent to with 3/10 of a stop. For example at 1/16 setting, I could fire 10 times and still be within 3/10 of a stop. That to me is more than good enough.

Now things changed when set to lowest setting of 1/32 power. Here pop to pop variation was more like 7/10 of a stop. I had to adjust exposure in the last 2 shots taken at that setting during RAW conversion. No WB adjustment, just exposure ad I had set my camera to f2.8 and sometimes I would read f2.0 7/10 sometimes f2.0 1/10.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by bobbyz

Did some more testing using AB800 in photoflex medium SB. Here are the results at different power settings. I just moved the slider to appropriate position and measured with L-358 to make sure I was within 2/10 of my target. Used WB/Expsoure page from my Scott Kelby book as a target.

WB was fixed to 5500 on my 1dmk2. Lens used was 70-200mm f2.8 non IS. No WB change in processing. Shot in RAW and converted to jpegs using C1LE.

I should have made it go down - Sorry.



At lowest setting, I have 2 shots on the right called 1/32 -1 and 1/32 -2.

Things I noticed:

From full power to all the way tao 1/16 power, pop after pop, power was consistent to with 3/10 of a stop. For example at 1/16 setting, I could fire 10 times and still be within 3/10 of a stop. That to me is more than good enough.

Now things changed when set to lowest setting of 1/32 power. Here pop to pop variation was more like 7/10 of a stop. I had to adjust exposure in the last 2 shots taken at that setting during RAW conversion. No WB adjustment, just exposure ad I had set my camera to f2.8 and sometimes I would read f2.0 7/10 sometimes f2.0 1/10.

Consistency to 0.3EV is not 'consistent' My Dynalite is consistent to 0.1EV, and 0.3EV is sufficient to cause slides or digital to have 'exposure error'. At least the color shift is not strongly apparent but I think I detect a tiny amount. Certainly nowhere as badly as some have illustrated and started threads about!

[pcunite]

Originally Posted by bobbyz

From 1/16 on it has introduce a new color...

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by bobbyz

Did some more testing using AB800 in photoflex medium SB. Here are the results at different power settings....From full power to all the way tao 1/16 power, pop after pop, power was consistent to with 3/10 of a stop. For example at 1/16 setting, I could fire 10 times and still be within 3/10 of a stop. That to me is more than good enough.

Now things changed when set to lowest setting of 1/32 power. Here pop to pop variation was more like 7/10 of a stop. I had to adjust exposure in the last 2 shots taken at that setting during RAW conversion. No WB adjustment, just exposure ad I had set my camera to f2.8 and sometimes I would read f2.0 7/10 sometimes f2.0 1/10.

Your unit, as described by you, seems to be less consistent than the one used in this comparison test. Maybe you meant to say Full to 1/8 was consistent to 0.1EV ?! In the test it was good until 1/16 (0.3EV) and 0.7EV at 1/32 matches the test result.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...12&postcount=1

[bobbyz]

Originally Posted by Wilt

Your unit, as described by you, seems to be less consistent than the one used in this comparison test. Maybe you meant to say Full to 1/18 was consistent to 0.1EV ?! In the test it was good until 1/16 (0.3EV) and 0.7EV at 1/32 matches the test result.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...12&postcount=1

Wilt,

Yes, at anything higher than 1/16, I was within 2/10 at most. I am not that meticulous as Robert so I was just hand holding the lightmeter next to the target and trigerring with cybersync Tx in my hand.

At 1/16, I was getting within 3/10 at worst.

At 1/32, it was like 7/10 like Robert showed in his results.

If I needed to shoot more at f2.8/f4.0, I would prefer AB400 over AB800. Or use ND gels on AB800.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by bobbyz

Wilt,

Yes, at anything higher than 1/16, I was within 2/10 at most. I am not that meticulous as Robert so I was just hand holding the lightmeter next to the target and trigerring with cybersync Tx in my hand.

At 1/16, I was getting within 3/10 at worst.

At 1/32, it was like 7/10 like Robert showed in his results.

If I needed to shoot more at f2.8/f4.0, I would prefer AB400 over AB800. Or use ND gels on AB800.

I'm glad for you that your unit is not worse than others tested!

And your last sentence should well be a learning point for those considering purchase of studio lighting, that 'buy the most powerful unit you can afford' does not always make for the best solution.