MadCityPhotog NYC NJ wrote:
The para I plan to build for now will be strong and sturdy. Non corrosive metals for the disc and ribs and double layered fabric. Smaller ones (3 ' and 5') would be fiber rods. I dont plan on stitching the fabric myself - whether it is my ready-made design or someone's DIY project.
I will have video and instructions for DIY lovers and information on where they can find materials (for solar project, photography para or audio booster)

It is targeted for making photography para. And I will choose to build deep para, that gives the ability to slowly transition light from hard to focused to softer effect.

May be you dont have time for such DIY project. But think of a photography student who has the time and energy. Someone in a different part of the world who wishes to build a solar cooker. Film school students can make one audio booster (parabilic mic) in less than 2 hours using foam core or similar materials.
ALL by using same concept with different shape n size.
CURRENTLY YOU DONT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION FOR DIY EVEN IF YOU WANT TO. With this project u can Diy a para of your design. Yes it would be possible that I will make one para exclusively for u with the size u specify. It is doable and it will still not cost thosands of dollars. But will be little more than regular priced one.

we have seen major breakthrough in technology in last few years. Smart phones, smart watches,  3d printers, self driven cars, drones, internet enabled home security, iphone controlled door locks...Why should we get stuck with just a handful of para choices. Why paying thousands of dollars for an umbrella. .u can buy a new small car for that price. And u would still need light and stands after that. If only few chooses to buy a para for the price of a car without asking why. .and everyone else stays happy with PLM and the similar ones then the folks who understands the difference but can't afford, will never be able to set their hands on this great one, true one, the deep one. We will miss out on the talented photographers' creations coz light modifiers being too costly. Technology advancement should make things easier and more affordable. That's my intention.

Media works differently now than 10 yrs ago..all I need is some back up from community and few thousand dollars to finish the prototype. Success on kickstarter will mean what u see now will be for real.
I can build and modify prototypes and still make few paras for first few backers. Once a motion is set it will get things rolling.

Then u will see all kinds of comparisons. I will work with models on photo shoots and uploading videos later.

Cool.

I did misunderstand. You will build some as well as makes plans and a design for DIY.
I will guess that those who can afford to pay for you build them, will ask you to do so.
Your cost of materials should be cheaper.
Your time involved should be less, since you will know how to assemble.
So if you charge a reasonable hourly rate, plus a reasonable profit margin, your paras should be a lot less than those from the big boys. Still more expensive than what the average shooter may want to spend, but very doable for somebody who can justify it, and is of limited resources.

And to hell with all the other arguing and sniping. I would love to have access to a studio where you could even open and move around a Para 222. The cost of the Para 222 is likely equiv. to one months rent. (bit of an exaggeration)

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Maybe you just didn't understand/appreciate the basis of the comparison.
What I was pointing out, is that in the process of comparing the two modifiers for equivalence, the fact that they both may technically be a mathematical parabola - that fact is about as significant for qualitative comparison as the cars both being painted red.

I got that, it's just that two things being parabolic is much more significant than two things being red.

MadCityPhotog NYC NJ wrote:
I think this can generate enough media interest to raise few thousand dollars to bring this to life. I think this would be awesome. I am open to suggestion. Positive ones are appreciated.

Just saw this...looks like a cool concept.  Maybe see if you can get Petapixel or FStoppers to cover it but I think you need to get it closer to a prototype before they'd be interested so it's a bit of a chicken/egg.
Just wanted to pipe in and say it'd be nice if it could survive hot lights or at least have a flap or two for cooling, even if that screws up the parabola a bit sometimes.

Herman Surkis wrote:
I would love to have access to a studio where you could even open and move around a Para 222. The cost of the Para 222 is likely equiv. to one months rent. (bit of an exaggeration)

You must have a fairly high rent.  Para 222s go for about $8000.

MadCityPhotog NYC NJ wrote:
Call me Tatha.
The central axial rod will have a 1/4 male thread. and  connecting adapter will be U shaped adapter. A circular ring will be attached to the open end of the U. I don't have this CAD design finsished yet, as this ring will br different for different strobe manufacturers.
I will have the L shaped one also. Though not great, it would work for most strobes.
I need to make the 1/4 screw thread to make it universal. As this 1/4 thread need to adapt a microphone, LED lamp holder, a cooking bowl also.

I have the plan for making my own strobe, but thats a long way to go. All for now

Tatha,
This sounds like much closer to BronColor's design, which I think is a good design. However, Broncolor makes you purchase a different one for each strobe brand (expensive - I think like $500). If you had even a hand scribbled design to post somehow that would be great.

I firmly believe the magic is going to happen (in terms of how one attaches the light head to your parabolic), by an attachment mechanism that uses a speedring, as opposed to leveraging the lamphead's connector, which is meant to connect to a lightstand.

descending chain wrote:

You must have a fairly high rent.  Para 222s go for about $8000.

I did say a bit of an exaggeration. 

And it does depend where.

And even in Victoria it could easily run you $2000 per month.

MadCityPhotog NYC NJ wrote:
ABOUT BEING PARABOLIC
This was discussed a lot..and if u experiment, I think u will also come with same explanation as below:
Both shallow or deep para, in theory, will send out parallel beam of light when a POINT  light source is kept EXACTLY at focus point.
In reality there is tolerance. .so ur light source is not a point, but a circular (flash tube with 2" dia may be) which will radiate light which is bit "off" the focus. As u make the para shallower, ur focus is moving away from tip (vertex)..at this point the shaft may bend down due to the weight of the strobe unit. This will increase the tolerance even more. I think that when u have your focus away from vertex, u will gather more scattered light along with a parallel beam. This reflected scattered light will nullify the parallel beam, in other words being less effective for producing parallel beam. A car headlight (high beam) is very deep parabolic, if u make it more shallow..it will not be as effective as it would being very deep shaped)

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought that shallow parabolas move the focus point away from the end.  Thus with a shallow parabola, one would generally find a greater distance between the light source and the surfaces of the parabola.  Due to the greater distance between the light source and the various surfaces of the parabola, I would expect shallow parabolas are generally less sensitive to the light source not being a point source.   

In the real world, where light sources are not point sources, I would expect it's easier to get parallel light from a shallow parabola rather than a deep parabola.   This may be balanced by the mechanical issues of whether it is easier to make a shallow or a deep parabolic reflector accurately.

Obviously, this is a different question then whether deep or shallow is better as a photographic light source.

In terms of car head lights, I though the primary reason for using a deep parabola is that the light source is inserted from the rear and facing forward.  When the light source is very close to the end of the parabola, the parabola must be deep.  Thus the deep parabolic shape of a head light is a practical matter.  With a car headlight, one does not want a true parallel beam of light.  A parallel headlight beam 6 inches in diameter would not be very helpful.  By using a small diameter, deep parabola, the bulb is big enough that it no longer acts as a pure point source, and there is some beam spread.  Furthermore, the direct light from the front facing bulb provides some spread of it's own, as we get direct light not affected by a reflector.  Even with bulbs that face rearward, it is important that the system not be a perfectly focused parabolic.  For a car headlight, one really does want some beam spread.

Getting back to photography, as others have mentioned, some photographers prefer to have the light source at other than the exact focal point of the parabola.  This suggests that in the desired configuration, the parabolic is not acting as a purely parallel light source.

It would be interesting to look at the various configurations that people are using, and try to understand the nature of the light being produced.     By defocusing the parabola, the light rays can diverge, or converge.  If the light rays are converging, are they converging at the subject, closer than the subject, or behind the subject?   Is there a mixture of parallel and non-parallel light (as you would expect from a parabolic where the light source is facing out)?

There seem to be strong opinions on whether deep or shallow parabolics are better for photography.   It's hard to have a meaningful discussion of which is better without first understanding the character of the light one is trying to generate.

MadCityPhotog NYC NJ wrote:
8.  Last but not least: I AM NOT SAYING WHICH ONE IS BETTER.  BUT HOW THEY WORK. AND HOW THEY CAN BE EASILY BUILT AND BE FITTED IN A STURDY UMBRELLA FRAMEWORK.

I am a fan of anyone who experiments and tests and makes improvements available for a good price.

Bottom line: I applaud your efforts.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I find it's interesting that the PCB sponsored paid promoter on MM is not ignorant enough to support your claim that the PLM can produce the same light as the deep parabolics are known for historically.

I assume this shot across the bow is intended for me. In truth I'm not sure I am still a sponsored photographer with Paul C. Buff Companies, in that my relationship to the company was rather personal between me and Paul Buff (for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me). Paul died recently and the company now has a more traditional corporate management structure, I have not tested the waters to find out what my relationship is with them.

As I have explained on many other occasions, I have never been paid directly for representing PCB products, but over the years Paul did provide me with access to new products to test and review. And as I have also pointed out previously,  I used PCB products before being sponsored (primarily the AB800 studio strobe for location work at the beach), and wrote one of my more popular reviews (of the then new ABR800 ringlight: "A Ring-ing" Endorsement")  before receiving a sponsorship.

That said, I have always felt that I should state that I am sponsored when referring to Paul C. Buff products in that I feel it is important that people know so they can take a more objective view of my writings. Also, I do not say "Paul C. Buff products are great!". rather I try to write reasoned reviews that highlight features I have found useful. There are (really!) many PCB products I have not reviewed, almost exclusively because I didn't find them particularly useful to me. A perfect example would be the Retro Laser Reflector which Paul sent me to test, and for which I could find no practical application in my work. (In fairness, I did leave it at Michael Fryd's studio and he thinks it is a wonderful product! Go figure.)

I mention the Retro Laser Reflector in this discussion because it basically gives you the same effect as a Parabolic Reflector when the light source is pushed forward past the focal point of the Parabolic. And that's a point I make over and over, you can get the effect(s) of an out of focus parabolic with any number of previously available light modifiers. What you can't get from anything other than a large Parabolic, is the parallel light waves which match the light we get from the sun. And this is why in such a short time the parabolic umbrella (shallow or deep) has become maybe the most important new light modifier in the last decade. Yes, I can push the light in, I can pull the light out, but who cares? Those lighting effects have been available for years, but the parallel light waves replicating the sun in the studio has only become available because of the new Parabolic Reflectors (when the light source is positioned at the focal point of the parabola).

This from my review on Model Mayhem of the PLM large parabolic umbrella "Here Comes the Sun!": ....a large parabolic used in a reasonably sized studio is the closest thing we have to bringing the sun inside. The way the light comes off a big parabolic umbrella makes it the one artificial light source which projects light the way the sun would outside. And it's one sun you can move around, raise and lower, to put it where you want it!


Model: The Amazing Tami Donaldson, shot using a Zeus Ringmaster ring light with a 56" Moon Unit light modifier.

I noted that when the video that was referenced got to the part where they pulled the light out from the focal point, that a hot rim reflection occurred, and that produces basically the same light as I get using a Zeus Ringmaster ringlight with the 56" Moon Unit. Like I said, interesting lighting effect, but not one we haven't had available to us for years.

You will find no distance between me and Michael Fryd (who is not and never has been a sponsored photographer for anyone other than his professional clients) on virtually any subject. Michael has a great engineering education (Electrical), experiences which you can only marvel at (wrote code for Adobe Postscript, and traveled all over the world lecturing on it, has been the lead production engineer for events like the Miss Universe pageant and the Oscars) ), and a wonderful mind which he frequently uses to embarrass me in private.

Michael's one failing is that when he sees a mouse, he can't help but play with it. On more than one occasion I have told him to back away from the keyboard and just take a deep breath. You have a point, Michael? Make it and get out. Even on these public forums, the audience that matters is perfectly capable of separating the wheat from the chaff if you just let them.

So finally, parallel light waves are parallel light waves. Whether the parabolic reflector is shallow or deep, if it produces parallel light waves (and it will if the light is placed at the focal point of the parabolic reflector) then whether the parabola is shallow or deep can't possibly change the nature of parallel light waves which emit off the reflector's surface. Anyone who says differently is arguing with Euclid, and that is an argument they are going to lose.

You call the cat, you get the cat.

John
Sponsored Photographer for Paul C. Buff Companies (Alien Bees, White Lightning. Zeus and Einstein)
--
John L. Fisher
700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
(305) 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

John Fisher wrote:

Those are some damn strong images. Looks like a brilliant light, when used properly.

John Fisher wrote:
You will find no distance between me and Michael Fryd (who is not and never has been a sponsored photographer for anyone other than his professional clients) on virtually any subject. Michael has a great engineering education (Electrical), experiences which you can only marvel at

Clearly I gave you way too much credit. I'd also be careful of characterizing my engineering background or what I'd be impressed by. Not terribly impressed that someone was on the Postscript development team (although it's interesting). For instance, depending upon when Michael attended engineering school (my guess is prior to this), he would have in all possibility (depending upon the university also) used the electronic circuit design software I developed and sold through my first company as part of his curriculum.

My point was about the deep paraboilc modifier as available for some time and Michael's insistence that the light from the PLM was identical to the light from the deep parabolic - just cost less and wasn't made as well - ridiculous assertion. Doesn't have anything to do with PLM approximating the sun or that there are other modifiers that might approximate a deep parabolic in some given setting or any of the other obfuscation you two throw up.

It sees you two buddies are joined at the hip - thank you for the notice - I'll consider you two as one person from now on.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

I am a fan of anyone who experiments and tests and makes improvements available for a good price.

Bottom line: I applaud your efforts.

me too, i think it is quite cool, the idea. glad we managed to keep it up so far up the page ..so as many people and minds could see it, share it and discuss it

Jose Deida wrote:
Something like this ?

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Paraboli … c+umbrella

I actually have one of these - there's some problems with it (and there are good things), not the least of which is the fact that contrary to their advertising it is not compatible with Profoto (except possibly the D1 monolight line).

MadCityPhotog NYC NJ wrote:
snip

I have things to do.
I will continue my work though....

Your biggest mistake was posting this on MM and not expecting the mayhem.

I will not go through a resume of my non-engineering degrees, nor of my non-design and IT work.

It is amusing to find people agreeing about the very points they argue about.

The pissing match is typical.

And what is really amusing is all the valid quibbles and points that are being ignored/missed because people are too involved with the pissing match. There are many problems and issues with EVERY piece of equipment being discussed, and they are being generally neglected. And if they were not neglected, perhaps they could be changed. (right, like any of the big boys would listen to anything).

Red Epic is the best camera in existence.  Perhaps for you, if it is what you need.

Hassy is the best, (actually not even good anymore). Perhaps for you, if it is what you need.

Canikon is the best.  Perhaps for you, if it is what you need.

Perhaps some point and shoot, or iPhone is the best. Perhaps for you, if it is what you need.

And what do you mean to imply that Toyota is not the best car out there?     

MadCityPhotog NYC NJ wrote:
I agree..and I drive toyota (last 15 yrs). Its the best.
lets change the topic from para to anything else.

Yes, dependable.
Mine is 16 yrs. old.
Walk out, put the key in the ignition, and it starts, and takes me where I want to go.
Not, new, not flashy, no massive amounts of gimmicks and toys. It just gets me where I want to go.

I have a friend who has old Normans. He can easily afford newer. I keep asking him, why not newer.
"I plug them in, I turn them on and they flash. So what else do I need."
This usually ends with those rare times I am silent with no comeback.