Something new and *very* useful for Einstein users ...

drewconner wrote in post #13620039
Did you have to contact Jerry to order them? I don't see it listed on his website yet.

Yes, just send an email to Jerry (email link is on his site) and tell him you are interested in the new 152mm Einstein mount.

tetrode wrote in post #13616753
The deflector seen in the photos, Dave, is actually from the current style PCB beauty dish. I don't own the BD but, many months ago, I called PCB to ask if I could purchase just the deflector. The deflector (disk+rod) is not in their system as a spare part so they just sent me one, gratis.

Dave F.

I just emailed PCB and they are currently unable to offer the deflector on it's own. The closest thing I could find at B&H is this (http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …tor_Set_for_Sof​tlite.html). Do you think it's close enough to the same size as the PCB one to adaquately block the Einstein?

Dave,
If you mount Jerry's adapter with the flange toward the inside of the modifier it gets the flash tube another 1/8" into the modifier.

I asked Jerry about a smaller adapter a couple of months ago, wish he said it wasn't practical, so I bought three of the original ones for my Pro Studio Solutions EZ boxes even though they are just a bit to large. This one should be perfect. Hopefully he'll swap them for me since I haven't used them yet.

dmward wrote in post #13621213
Dave,
If you mount Jerry's adapter with the flange toward the inside of the modifier it gets the flash tube another 1/8" into the modifier.

I know, but then the ventilation slots on the front of the Einstein are covered. That's why I didn't mention that configuration.

Dave F.

Can you tell me which speedring you are using to mount the Photoflex box? I just tried to use my new Kacey adapters in my Photoflex connectors and it's about half an inch too big.

Edit: I think I found it, and much cheaper than the Photoflex one! http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1325813​579&sr=1-1

m.shalaby wrote in post #13657036
...
But what do I know... I'm just a "N0ob who's been shooting strobe for 6 months"

Exactly!

Dave F.

<twiddles thumbs>

Still waiting for example shots to convince me that this is worth my money. As it stands, I'll admit to being somewhat skeptical.

</twiddles thumbs>

All of my modifiers had elinchrom inserts, then I switched to Einsteins, I needed new inserts anyway, so these were a no brainer for me. Most AB inserts cost around $20, so not much difference in cost here.

Also, I trust from looking at Dave's very detailed examples that these inserts improve the evenness of light with many large modifiers, as well as with any speedring/insert combo where the included ring + insert is particularly deep.

As a bonus, these inserts allow for the Einstein fingers to fully return to the locked position, whereas many of the third party salad bowl inserts do not. And the pre-drilled hole is useful, not that it's that difficult to drill the hole, but nice to not have to.

m.shalaby wrote in post #13657816
You did the mod? Show me your before and after's. I would LOVE to see the results.

I predict perhaps 1/10th or 2/10th stop difference in output - if any difference at all.

This will make zero impact on your final shot. Zero.

But I do understand people have a lot of time on their hands and love to modify gear. So you get threads like this.

The "Wow" was in response to your frontal assault on Dave, not your opinion that these inserts do no good. I get that he agreed with your self assessment as a Noob, which was maybe a bit rude, but your response to that was surprising, thus the Wow.

I already explained my reason for purchasing these, needed AB inserts anyway, so if they don't actually improve coverage, I don't care.

Dave put a useful option out there for people that might be interested, clearly you are not one of those people.

m.shalaby wrote in post #13657753
Yes, so I've been told. My work is complete garbage and I have zero idea what I'm doing.... especially for 6 months of shooting.

I need to learn... heck, having said that - Dave, I would love to see some of your work! Truly!
I love the zero links to your work Where's the flickr? Where's your website? I want to see how much a "master" you really are to put me down. Whats that old saying?? Put up or shut up? Yes, thats fits quite nice here. Lets see some of that master work of yours!

Getting back on track to this usless modification - Prove me wrong - thats all I gotta say. Conduct a test and show how this makes any "very" significant difference in light output as you claim. Until then, I'm calling fail.

As it stands now, my octaboxes are pretty darn even from corner to corner. I see this making zero difference.

I have a lot of respect for your work. You don't need to defend yourself. When you go off on tangents like this, I lose respect. You don't need to say anything, your work speaks for itself. I see the angle you're coming from here, don't agree with the approach.

Somebody needs anger management.

Comparison shots of a 5' Photoflex octa mounted on an Einstein:

lol...funny thread.

What I'd like to see is results from a real shoot on a real person. That's my problem w/ wall photos and photos of the front of softboxes/modifiers. Sure it might be slightly different, but does it have a significant/visible effect on the final photo?
Do an A/B shot w/ the modifier in the same place w/ a person in the photo swapping only the kacey mount (old/new). Let us guess which is which or choose which is "better". If you get a 75-80% confirmation that the new one is better, it's truly better...if it's 90+%, we all need to buy it...if it's 40-60, it's probably close enough that it makes no difference...if it's 50-50, it makes zippo difference in real life
I think this is something called scientific method...or at least that's what they called it when I was in school

p.s., FWIW, Plume softboxes have different thickness diffusion panels in the middle...you can use either or both to get the evenness you want...you can also use both to get a deliberate "ring" unevenness for a different effect (Gary Regester claims you can only see this close up, but I haven't been able to).

m.shalaby wrote in post #13658426
...
I see your method as laborious, unsure to fit with all speed rings (as someone already commented on in this thread), expensive, and less effective.

So swapping one speedring insert for a different one, a one-time task, is somehow more laborious than sizing, cutting, and sewing fabric into a modifier? The Kacey insert is a standard 6" in diameter and is a sure fit in ANY speedring that accepts inserts of that size and will work its magic on any speedring-mounted modifier; not just ones that have had a prosthesis grafted to the back of a baffle. And may I ask how you know it's "less effective" when you've never worked with one? And "less effective" than what?

My Photek Illuminata has a silver reflective circle sewn on the back side of the inner baffle which produces a slight but noticeable darkened circle on the outer baffle. I find an adjustable deflector to be a better solution but that's what makes horse races.

No one's arm is being twisted. If you don't think the Kacey adapter is worthwhile, by all means stick with the standard polished soup bowls. Just don't claim the Kacey adapter has no effect. As the photos above demonstrate, it very clearly does.

Dave F.

m.shalaby wrote in post #13658706
^^ Westcott gives you two different inner diffusion panels with their strip boxes. One with a reflective oval in the middle facing the strobe to bounce the light back into the box and reduce the hotspot, and one without.

Interesting..thought Plume might have patented that feature...good to know that the Westcott strips are even.

m.shalaby wrote in post #13658861
I never stated the Kacey insert was “less effective” then anything.

No?

"I see your method as laborious, unsure to fit with all speed rings (as someone already commented on in this thread), expensive, and less effective."

Dave F.