Speaking of the 64" PLM V2 ...

Here's something to be on the lookout for. This probably applies to all V2 PLMs. Look at this photo of the central shaft of my 51" PLM V2:

That's just plain poor engineering. Simply crimping the ends would have kept the pin in place. I'm not impressed, and I think PCB should have realized there would be a problem BEFORE shipment on the PLM v2 started.

SilverHCIC wrote in post #11111219
That's just plain poor engineering. Simply crimping the ends would have kept the pin in place. I'm not impressed, and I think PCB should have realized there would be a problem BEFORE shipment on the PLM v2 started.

That's not how it works, beta tester.

Heh, thats sorta looks like an after-thought or last minute change... Simple crimping on the ends would of solved that, perhaps crimp the others instead of switching em out for safety pins?

I hope that PM was about a job Dave, i think we would all appreciate any contributions you could provide on the Buff gear, though i couldn't imagine working with Luap myself.

ANY other manufacturer would have caught that in the design phase and it never would have gone into production. These 'little' problems keep surfacing with PCB products.

And Paul wonders why there is so much negativity. This is v2 and the end user (Dave) has to be the one to find this problem. Ridiculous.

Thanks to the awesome customer service, you can send them all back while you're at it and get the PLM v3. Do you prefer that material, Dave? Or the v3 one?

Unfortunately yet another thread relating to these products deteriorated to the point that admins felt the need to lock it. However, in the thread, there was reference made to a couple of tests. I found the youtube vid from John Ricard to be helpful, and he made a point in there about something I have tried to explain previously in other threads. That is, using a PLM, the ability to feather the light falling on the subject by turning the light/modifier to the side a bit. These modifiers provide a very distinct light falloff out at the edges as you would expect from a parabolic. I find this can be used as a creative control of the light that cannot be easily done with a plain umbrella.
As John points out, these a different tool from other modifiers, so it is, of course, up to the user to determine which tool and how to use it to best achieve their creative vision for the shot.

Hopefully this thread will not deteriorate into the usual drivel....because I for one would really like to see continuing discussion on how to use these products.

These were the links referenced in the now locked thread:

You can also tell from the results. See:

http://www.robgalbrait​h.com/bins/mul...=7-10046-10396

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=IlQXB8omtyo

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=feFATdwkLUk

The John Ricard video is pretty useless. Absolutely unscientific and the comparison is between a 36" umbrella and an 86" PLM. What's the point? It tells us nothing.

I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague from NY. Did you watch the whole vid Rob? And did you watch part two ?
At about the 7:30 point in the first vid he also took readings from the 74" Eli octa....and I felt his meter readings from it compared to the PLM proved that for the most part, the Eli was more even in it's light distribution across the beam. Although, having said that, the PLM was essentially within about a half a stop across it's spread, which for many folks may well be good enough. Again, to me, this was useful information. And it will be up to the end user to determine whether this is even enough lighting or not.

And you are always asking for examples of actual shots taken with these PLM's.....he did so in part two. Granted, it's a little hard to tell much about the quality on a youtube vid, but you still can get a feel for it. Also, he demonstrated, as I mentioned earlier, that with a parabolic, you can feather the light falling on the subject, by re-aiming the angle of the modifier to the subject. As you know Rob, this concept of feathering the light by movement of a modifier may not be readily apparent to users that are new to studio lighting, so this demonstration in a video format can be very helpful.

george m w wrote in post #11112729
I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague from NY. Did you watch the whole vid Rob? And did you watch part two ?
At about the 7:30 point in the first vid he also took readings from the 74" Eli octa....and I felt his meter readings from it compared to the PLM proved that for the most part, the Eli was more even in it's light distribution across the beam. Although, having said that, the PLM was essentially within about a half a stop across it's spread, which for many folks may well be good enough. Again, to me, this was useful information. And it will be up to the end user to determine whether this is even enough lighting or not.

And you are always asking for examples of actual shots taken with these PLM's.....he did so in part two. Granted, it's a little hard to tell much about the quality on a youtube vid, but you still can get a feel for it. Also, he demonstrated, as I mentioned earlier, that with a parabolic, you can feather the light falling on the subject, by re-aiming the angle of the modifier to the subject. As you know Rob, this concept of feathering the light by movement of a modifier may not be readily apparent to users that are new to studio lighting, so this demonstration in a video format can be very helpful.

Well George.. I have a problem with comparisons where someone is hand holding a meter and randomly moving around making comparisons. If you're looking at how even a modifier is then that means you're somewhat critical and that means that taking 2 steps back and taking a reading or holding it at waist length is meaningless if you're going to compare it against another modifier in the same way.

Feathering is nothing new. It's been done for a long time with modifiers of all kinds so demonstrating feathering with a PLM is not showing me anything really useful. I'm not sure why you think that somehow the parabolic opens up the door for feathering, as if it couldn't be successfully done without a PLM.

I'm just not finding all this casual comparison to be anything of use and without something more scientific I'm not impressed or interested.

If you're going to make comparisons then put the meter on a light stand and measure the distance from the source of illumination to the meter and maintain some constants.

Rob,
I would agree that to put the meter at specific distances, and make accurate measurements would be better. And to make it scientific, there should be multiple readings from each position to ensure there is consistency from pop to pop. And if not, then why ? If there is some inconsistency, and if it is within acceptable tolerances, then at the least, the results from that position should be averaged. To do all of this in the context of a quick and easy to view youtube video....well, let's just say this is gonna run rather long, timewise. I'm guessing with the quality of the light packs he was using, they were pretty consistent pop to pop.

To your comment about feathering not being anything new.....true enough....but remember that to many folks on the forum, it is in fact, something new. Demonstrating this basic concept is a very useful thing to folks just starting out.

I still disagree with your idea about the ease of feathering with a regular umbrella vs a parabolic. And it does not matter if the para is made by Eli, PCB or Larry, Moe and Curly....the very nature of the pattern of light projecting off of a parabolic makes it easier to feather. At least in my camera room it does. And yes, I've tried it, and do so with every modifier I have, including PLM, regular umbrellas, soft boxes with and without grids, and beauty dish, again with and without grid.

As John Ricard pointed out, these are different tools that can be used in different ways.

Yes, we can often obtain similar or even the same results using different tools for the same job....but we may have to use different procedures to get there.

His comparison also demonstrated the efficiency of the reflective surface of the PLM, which is a concept that many folks have demonstrated repeatably on this and other forums.

Now.....as for me....I'm out the door. The sun is shining here, it's 62 degrees and the autumn leaves are turning. So I'm gonna go snap some pics of colorful leaves....using nothing but good old sunshine for the light source.

We'll just have to disagree on the feathering issue George. I can feather light very effectively with any modifier I own in any camera room. They all have different qualities but my point was that the video and your statements about the video make it seem as if we're being shown a new technique that is the creation of PCB through the PLM and that message is part of the misleading hype that people are buying into.

Someone may see a slight difference and perhaps like to feather light with a PLM over another modifier but it's not like they couldn't do it or just had to get a PLM to do that new feathering thingie.

Even with consistent strobes, if you're going to look at evenness you need to have some anchor points for taking those readings. My Elinchrom's are ridiculously stable but if I just hold up the meter to take random readings here and there or 2 inches to the left or right from pop to pop that's just not going to cut it.

A lot of testing is visual and doesn't have to be done under the microscope but I just feel that when you're doing close comparisons where light and physics are an absolute then it makes more sense to test and present information in a more scientific manner so that the data can be taken seriously and other scientific minds can agree or confirm the technique and method used. Without anything concrete like that then videos like that are just asking us to buy into the hype blindly.

LOL we will never see the end of this PLM story.. hahahahaha

george m w wrote in post #11113140
Now.....as for me....I'm out the door. The sun is shining here, it's 62 degrees and the autumn leaves are turning. So I'm gonna go snap some pics of colorful leaves....using nothing but good old sunshine for the light source.

I've made a few trips to Home Depot today and I'm finishing up all the painting on my ring light. This week I'm expecting the last of the parts I need and then the final assembly.

For me the advantage of a parabolic is not just that it's very controlled, but that it's very controlled while being both big and contrasty. I used to shoot mainly with bare lights and snoots, but the HOBO light PLM copy functions a kin to a 42" bare light.

It gives that certain sheen that I can't replicate with normal umbrellas, while at the same time offering nice wrap.