The least appealing part about them to many pros is the lack of power, or true watts per second.
I saw that on their specs for their monolights. It says something like 400 effective w/s and 250 true w/s. How does that work?
Here is my take on it. I have owned professional level studio flash equipment since 1987,and am familiar with some of the history of the Paul C. Buff products.
The concept of sowing doubt and fear about "effective" watt-seconds and "true" watt-seconds has been widely ridiculed by older professionals who have been around studio lighting equipment for decades. The idea of effective vs true watt-seconds is a brilliant and purely marketing-driven idea invented by Paul C. Buff, years ago, to confuse customers and to spread fear, uncertainty,and doubt about--FIRST, about the other flash manufacturers of the 1980's, and then 15-20 years later, the so-called "Euro-flash" companies. It is pure and simple, a way to make customers feel better about the product: unlike other,older flash companies like Speedotron and Photogenic from the USA, and Braun, Elinchrom, and Bowens from outside the USA, Buff started naming his flash units "differently", with the White Lightning 10,000 back in the 1980's. No other flash manufacturer used such a high specification "number" to identify its monolights. Lumen-seconds is not the traditional way to rate studio flash units: THE STANDARD for decades prior to the 1980's had been watt-seconds or Guide Number. Beginning with the White Lightning "10,000", and continuing to today, the Alien Bee flash line uses a specification number that is far in excess of the number of stored watt-seconds.
The imaginary "other company" the true vs. effective watt-seconds nomenclature was "based upon"was never once identified by name and or model that I know of; the idea put forth in the Bufff company's marketing materials is that the "other" companies were/are being disingenuous or flat-out lying by stating the number of watt-seconds worth of energy stored in their flash units' capacitors. Lots of smoke was blown about lumen-seconds output of Buff units, primarily because it is one way to actually quantify light levels--and yet, NOBODY I KNOW in America or Europe, owns a lumens-seconds meter. Many of us have light meters, and the traditional method was to test flash units for Guide Number, stated in Feet in the USA, in metres in the rest of the world, at ASA of 100 (later ISO), in a "normal-sized" indoor room that did not have hugely high ceilings. Calumet Photographic, in its huge and comprehensive 1986 catalog, had ALL flash units tested the same way: the actual f/stop metered at 10 feet from the front face of a medium Chimera soft box. By doing that, they 1) fairly and 2) realistically equalized the measuring method t the then-current "standard" of a 36x48 inch softbox, of top quality. And you know what??? My recollection is that Speedotron, Norman, Photogenic, Broncolor, Calument, and Dyna-Lite ALL had almost identical actual f/stop ratings among packs of the same price class and nominal specification. There was very,very little difference between the major flash makers, which lead me then to the conclusion that the "real" and the "effective" watt-second ratings of the major flash makers were all QUITE realisitc,and honest. I pored through the 1986 Calumet catalog for months before finally making my decision to go with Speedotron equipment.
In all honesty, the majority of flash has for decades been based on units like 50,100,200,400,800,1200,1600,and 2400 watt-seconds. The fact that the Buff company has taken a 320 watt-second monolight--but labels and sells it with the name of Alien Bee 800 while alleging that it has "800 watt-seconds of effective power" is quite a marketing ploy. I would dearly LOVE to read name and model number of the "other company" that makes this mythical 800 watt-second power supply and flash head OR monobloc flash that stores 800 watt-seconds of power and does not absolutely blow the Alien Bee 800 away. My feeling is that the "effective/actual" disparity is so,so ridiculously large that the only possible way a 320 watt-second light could approach the output of an 800 watt-second unit is if the 800 watt-secopnd were something like a 35 year old, bottom of the barrel Novatron. Seriously: let's look at a 320 horsepower engine and say it produces 800 "effective" horsepower. Instead of calling it a 320 HP engine, let's call specify it as an 800 horsepower engine. To put this marketing and naming system into perspective: I am exactly 6 "real" feet tall, but when I play basketball I am 15 "effective" feet tall. In high school I played football at a "real" 168 pounds, but my "effective" playing weight was 420 pounds.
The real/effective disparity is a factor of 2.5 x!!! I have an old Nikon worth a "real" $95, but I would like to get an "effective" dollar price 2.5 higher, or $237.50.
I hope this answers what Alien Bees means to "some" people in the photography world. Medium-priced lights sold under a specious "effective power" level that is 2.5 higher than most other companies. To people who have been around studio lighting for a long time, the company that makes the A-B units has a history that is, well, one of "inflated claims" leveled against a decades-long phantom "other" opponent. Many are happy with the AB flashes and their price and cute name and affordability, and the marketing materials are rich and thick and comforting.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31014-6b1a572624824b852f5adaf3594767af.jpg?1734159093)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31017-dec7e898bd21f99b70534f8d06a4154c.jpg?1734159103)