Nope, not even close. But it does help offset the cost of some of my gear.

What I see is that Profoto light has faster recycling time (about 2 times faster) and.... mmmm... what else? is that worth extra 700 dollars? Of course I am pretty ignorant on this matter, maybe I am missing something or getting it all wrong - please feel free to correct me. But I would really like to know what these extra $700 per flash units will buy me.

Bragging Rights 

A Toyota Camry will get you from Los Angeles to San Diego in 1.5 hours in comfort and safety.
So will a Mercedes-Benz E 320.

Let me use another analogy.
I look at my Seiko watch and it tells me that it is twelve noon. I ask my friend sitting next to me who is wearing a Rolex, what the time is.
He tells me it is twelve noon. Two watches, way different price, same time. Imagine that.

OK one last example we can all understand.
We set up a studio shoot. My friend brings his $8000 Canon 1DsMKIII, I shoot with a $2700 Canon 5DMKII. We use the same lens.
Who gets the better image?

Elena, here is a colour temperature comparison with Profoto, Elinchrom and White Lightning.  I always assumed that WL was essentially the same as AB - BUT I DO NOT KNOW FOR FACT.

http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/lighting-equipment-technique/35618-profoto-vs-white-lightning-vs-elinchrom-results.html

AB and White Lightning do have the same electronics internally (more or less), the AB have plastic housings and weaker modeling lamps.
Also ABs are only available up to the '1600' version. WL have a '3200' version.

Paul C Buff reportedly has some new high end fully digital units coming out called 'Einstein'.
These are supposed to sell for slightly more than the WL line and due to the digital circuit control PCB claims that the color temp will be consistent over the entire power range.

I am holding my breath.... as I am quite interested in these. If they perform as promised my WL will go up on eBay 

I don't use Alien Bees, but I have the other Paul C Buff product: White Lightnings.
They are virtually bulletproof, and the customer service is top notch.

The down side to them is that the color temperature will vary a bit depending on the light output setting.

So, it you are shooting all day @ f16 and all of a sudden decide to change your main light to f5.6 you need to perform another white balance or gray card frame before you go on with the shoot.

I don't have any experience with the Profoto units and I am sure that they are top notch... but I dare anyone to tell the difference in the final product (the photograph) between shots taken properly with either brand.

PS - The great and powerful Lise Gagne of iStock fame lists 3 AB 1600s in her arsenal of equipment.

@GM - your wife is a terrific model! You are one lucky guy 

I had one once when I was still with SS. Not had any since then though.
Congrats!

Istock is the only place I've sold an image for under 20 cents in the last year, had a bunch of .18s and some .10s too.

That maybe, but for that little all they were able to purchase is a little tiny image that is only usable on a web page.
Contrast that with a full size image selling on SS and getting only $0.25-0.35 for it?

That is what I object to... and the main reason that I went exclusive on IS.
 

I don't know what kind of wackjobs are looking for kink on the micros, but if you look at Shutterstock's top 100 searched terms this past month you will find

1.  Clitoris
14. Vagina
69. Navel
77. Striptease
91. Penis

No pretty, handsome, girl, headset....

Shows what a fool I am. I forgot to put ANY of those keywords on
My images!

Thanks for that observation, tan510jomast.

Actually no, by designers I was referring to those that purchase stock images to design websites, brochures, print advertisements etc, etc.

I would be foolish to believe that fashion designers would need anything other than shots or their own 'next big thing', whatever that might be.

Cheers,

Joseph

I've noted an interesting phenomenon.

I shoot female models mostly and I believe that they are all attractive.
When I upload them I generally get a mild number of views, in the order of 10-20.

BUT if I upload a model wearing a bikini all of a sudden the views skyrocket!
One file recently garnered over 200 views the first day it went live.

I can only surmise from this that most designers are heterosexual males 

@Lcjtripod, would you not need a property release from the hotel?

Also, what about liability insurance in case someone became injured during the shoot?
I doubt that the hotel would want to take on the liability.
Or course I could be completely mistaken on this point and would love to hear differing opinions.

Even better if someone here knows the answer for certain 

The new technical director wants to break down the boundries of normal photography and amaze the world via istock....slight problem in those images are not of any use to a buyer.

I can see these being used as book covers for a suspense novel or as illustrations for a new story about crimes of passion etc, etc.
Having said that, I don't think these images will sell a LOT, as this is a very specialized use indeed.

Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2009, 18:45

Quote from: averil on February 06, 2009, 06:11

I realize this is a little speculative (but not greatly so, given the current state of play), but I believe this is the reason why, in the not too distant future, 'models' will be computer generated and not real people at all. The advances in CG characters in cinema in the past five years have been pretty spectacular.

I don't know - this is where the Uncanny Valley theory kicks in.  I think real human models will continue to be the standard for the foreseeable future. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

I'm familiar with the uncanny valley theory, and I think there's a lot to it. However, I've seen a few comments from people in vfx who say that the most difficult part to get right is movement. For still images, this isn't such a problem, and I believe we'll be seeing photoreal 3D models pretty soon. Mark Evans already has images containing 'people' where the people have more detail than simple silhouette (a couple of airport shots) - this trend can only continue.

Well now we have totally hijacked this thread.
IMHO if advertisers wanted to get around using live models, they already have the option of using illustrations. Many indeed do just that.

Do you remember the line from the original 'The Matrix' movie concerning how when the computers first tried to produce an artificial world they made it 'perfect'? The human minds could not accept that and millions died.

That is how I see this 3D computer modeling. It looks OK, but something that I can't put my finger on is amiss. Just don't like it.

Plus, with a live model, in four hours I can get maybe four clothing changes, 20 different expressions plus nuances of those expressions and countless poses.
How long does it take to generate all those changes on a 3D model?