Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Chimera is a middle range mass produced soft box system that many photographers use in the studio and on location. I have several stuck up in storage, they are troublesome to work with as to set up and break down. The support struts are not easy to work with. For the cost, they are a good selection for those who do not work on a regular bases.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Thank you for the explanation.

I didn't think it was this:
"a fire-breathing female monster with a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail."

However knowing Bob, I thought it possible he was alluding to:
"A thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve."

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

You have nailed the reason why this idea was developed. When using this home made item you are utilizing most of the light from the hand flash by directing it forward to the subject.

Here is another modification for this idea, replacing the child's balloon for a prophylactic. Inflated these will produce much less diffusion and so generate a much more contrast light effect.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Perhaps some of my posts in this thread were misunderstood. I have nothing against home-made, improvised or modified equipment. I am very familiar with most of the light modification gear that was made available over the years and what is currently popular. My point was not to endorse, defend or deride any particular brand or configuration. The thrust of my posts was; as with many other types of photographic equipment- camera, lenses flash gear and accessories, folks oftentimes become too preoccupied with different brands and models and pay far too little attention to theory, technique and practice. The becom disappointed with certain kinds of gear because they have not selected the right tool for the right job or they just don't know how to operate or apply the equipment they have invested in. This is a very common issue with lighting gear and accessories.

Call me crazy, but I feel most folks don't know how to use their photographic umbrellas effectively.

When I suggested starting a section on lighting dynamics, I was not necessarily referring to using equipment just as it comes out of the box, modifying existing designs or creating your own accessories. My concept would be a section devoted to understanding how photographic lightg works- all the underlying theories and especially some of the practical nuts and bolts methodologies and important issues that are seldom discussed. There are so many aspects of lighting that never come up on this forum, thigs like feathering techniques, unseen secondary light, subtractive lighting, finite application of the angle of incidence theory, and how size and distance of lightg apparatus affect light quality. If folks had a comprehensive knowledge of these principles they could expertly select the right lighting gear for their purposes or better design their own contraptions and most importantly achieve the results they are after.

I don't know how this thread became a debate about client satisfaction etc. I have been in the photography business for a very long time and very few if any of my clients ask me about or question my equipment. They want results and assume I know what I am doing and that I am going to use the appropriate gear for the job at hand. A gotta admit, however, that appearances, in business, do count. I am not gonna show up at a formal occasion in my favorite pair of messy blue genes or at an executive portrait shoot in my cargo shorts! Shooting at any event with a birth control/STD-protective device stretched over my flash gear? Noooooo! I don't think so! As kids, some of my cohorts and I would fill those things with water and toss them off the roof of my Brooklyn brownstone- we were 9 years old!

Incidentally, I use to run a side business of electronic flash repairs, modification and custom build. We made prototype gear out of cardboard, plastic shower curtains, Foam-Cor board, hot glue, and elastic bands. Once the lighting design was finalized we would bring in an industrial designer or manufacturing engineer to refine the look and the integrity of the item before attempting any kind of marketing. We didn't want the stuff looking wired or falling off of or potentially damaging the equipment it was going to be fitted to.

I am also the proud owner of a Westcott giant INFLATABLE cylindrical softbox - don't ask! It came in a small soft case with an air blower. When erected and inflated, it is about six feet in length and about a yard in diameter. Vertically oriented, it's great for full-length fashion shots. Horizontally set up on a boom stand, I use it for very wide table-top work. I may have the only one still in existence- I don't think they sold very well. Think of a big "airbag"!

(Download)

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

I understood your post and I totally agree with what you posted. I hope that you understood what I put up as well. I will continue with this as a series and am going to add to what I began with.

The whole thing with interaction of clients is a good point, but lets face it, most of the people on this forum have nothing to do with commercial photography. Comments like that are poorly placed on a forum for amateur photo forums. The one and singular feed back from participants when I ran a photography program was that all the kool gear was fine but as an armature the participants would vocalize that they could ill afford all the expensive gear. I think there is a nitch and a place to offer alternatives to the expensive gear, and I see The Hog as such a place.

In addition, there are glaring points about professional gear that practiced professionals are clueless about and I will cover those subjects as well. This does NOT mean I'm the end all nor can I not learn from others, I can and will.

As an example but totally off the subject in a sense, Polaroid would direct working professionals to call me with questions or desperate assistance for Polaroid Transfer questions. The issue came down to the single failing that they knew NOTHING about the paper (and surfaces) they were transferring the image to. The truth is in all the published information, the large 24X24 camera project was there any discussion for this. Even today the Polaroid Transfer is still a lost process. Like anything in any discipline one needs to first identify the problem and then look for a solution to that problem with people who have solutions. For the Polaroid Transfer problems the issue was the substrate, the paper to be transferred to. The knowledgeable people would be fine art print makers. But I knew this having been exposed to print making at UTSA.

By the way, the Westcott inflatable soft box was totally kool, I loved that item, it was truly innovative thinking.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Big Polaroid! I loved to see that 20x24 camera- they brought it to conventions and it did a stint at the National Archives up here in Canada where ti was used to photograph works of art. I used to shoot a ton of 8x10 transparencies in my commercial work so I bought the 8x10 Polaroid processor and the materials for testing. First I would do a 4x5 section to verify exposure and them shoot an 8x10 Polaroid to carefully assess the lighting and composition. Unfortunately enough, I discarded much of those test shots but I did save a few. The color quality was quite nice and I always wondered if the paper that was packaged with the film 8x01 (Type 803) was somehow superior to the 4x5 (Type 59 and 559) variety. Those AZO dyes really held up well - never faded. I still have the processor- a blue cabinet with what looks like an steel washing-machine wringer inside. There is a case of a late run run of the 803 on Ebay for around $1,045 for 45 some sets in sealed boxes. B&H still has it listed at $179. for 10 exposures.

I never got ino much experimentation with alternative Polaroid transfers or did any of that scratching and manipulation of the chemicals in the pods. I do have some fond memories if a Diane Arbus exhibition of her one-of-a-kind Polaroid images- wild stuff!
Poor Dr. Land- came up with Polaroid movies about the same time as home video erupted- bad timing. I still consider him a genius.

aaciolkowski Loc: Sugar Grove Illinois

A photo of the device would clear things up.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

I'm sorry to report that I gave up on small flash units. Truth is most were just not reliable except the Vivitar 283 and 285. Items like Quantum Q-Flash were super but for the cost one could get Paul C Buff gear. With small hand flash the big point was location work and battery, both I had no use for.

Now there are good devices and all but for me it is power bases, mono lights, and plug into wall 120 AC.

I shoot in my garden a bunch, and have always dealt with the garden as a special studio. Of course the garden is home to The Bubble Baby! LOL!!! So water is a special component and the garden has four cold and four hot water spigots along with large umbrellas for shade and rain control. Two major 120 power supplies in weather covered outlets to supply power.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

I was a CUC (Creative Use Consultant) with Polaroid. Like many traditional companies they were never really concerned with creative aspects of their product. I developed a whole new aspect for Polaroid color materials, but not interested was their position. The new Polaroid people are just as a sleep at the switch.

What brought down Polaroid was it did not go with the digital and computer landscape. My pitch was to do Polaroid Transfer, then keep the severally weak positive image. I called this a Polaroid Matrix. The image was there to a simple computer bed scanner. This could be scanned by the bed scanner then taken into a computer and a new image was created from the scanned image.

I wish I could show these but I do figure images and they are not allowed in the general posting area.

Should you wish to view these example images they are located here on the Hog in the nude section of Hog: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-580181-1.html