External flashes

[Lachesis00]

I am buying a second hand, used Speedlight 550ex flash tomorrow. Does anyone own one? Any pointers/tips you can give for an external flash?
The guy has a 420ex too but I think the 550ex will be more suited for my needs right now. He gave me a break on the price too. :banana:

I need to learn how to bounce the flash and such. A whole new ballgame for me!

[jann1033]

just subscribing...don't know how much you are paying but KEH.com had few flashes for a good price( under 100 including a sigma super 5??( i hate numbers) which is comparable to the canon 580( again with the numbers) i always see the good deals when the pockets are empty:lmao:

[Cheeky in TN]

http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/speedlites.html

I recently went flash shopping and came accross this page, it may help you also. the big thing I found (which is not on this page and next to impossible to find anywhere) is the flash recovery time. My understanding is the 430ex and 580ex have much faster recovery times than previous generations.

[jann1033]

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/
another article on flash..not sure what kind of camera you have but i assume the basic stuff would apply

[Spinning]

My new camera has this feature..not sure what it is .....of course I am still reading the novel, I mean manual for it...

edit...I meant the slow flash?

[jann1033]

since you changed the question i deleted my answer

[extreme8]

Slow flash, or "slow synch flash" is a way of using your flash to illuminate part of your scene (usually the subject in the foreground) while allowing the ambient light in the background to be recorded as well.
It basically gives a quick flash to illuminate the foreground, then keeps the shutter open long enough to get a good exposure for the background.
If you choose slow synch and rear curtain flash at the same time the flash will fire at the end of the exposure instead of the beginning.

For example, if you wanted to take a night time picture of someone on the balcony at the CR with the MK in the background you would use slow synch so you would be able to see the park behind them.
If you just used a regular flash setting you would have a nicely exposed picture of a person standing against a railing with a completly black background.
Be sure to use a tripod because some of those types of shot can keep the shutter open for a long time.

On a P&S this mode is usually called "night portrait" or something similar.

[Master Mason]

beat to the punch... and by a better answer :)

[boBQuincy]

Here is a short explanation of slow-sync on a Canon website:

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/flashwork/ettl2/slow/index.html

By using Av mode to change the aperture it also changes the shutter speed to give different effects, such as blur. Second-curtain flash sync usually works best for these.

[TomPokNY]

What confuses me is that Slow Synchro Flash sounds a lot like the Night Scene and the (Special Scene) Night Snapshot shooting modes. I've convinced myself that Slow Synchro Flash is there so that you can use it in the Creative Zones, but I'm still not clear on the difference between Night Scene and Night Snapshot (and I haven't had a chance to experiment with them yet). Any ideas?

[wdwpluto]

What confuses me is that Slow Synchro Flash sounds a lot like the Night Scene and the (Special Scene) Night Snapshot shooting modes. I've convinced myself that Slow Synchro Flash is there so that you can use it in the Creative Zones, but I'm still not clear on the difference between Night Scene and Night Snapshot (and I haven't had a chance to experiment with them yet). Any ideas?

I think Night Scene may be for night landscapes w/o people, whereas Night Snapshot might be for a portrait of someone at night. :confused3

[jann1033]

well snikeys i bought the wrong flash...
got a good deal but hehe lot of good it will do me...
i got a 430 ez instead of 430 ex. so according to my rebel xt manual i can use it but not in ttl or attl..not even sure if this has a manual mode on the flash... so anyone know anything about any of the above that can help me decide if i should sell it and get the other one..so very ticked.
will any of the compensation, zoom etc features work...oh i am so mad at myself

swooh the seller canceled it and is going to refund my money...although i would have made the same mistake with keh since that was also a ez....but spend twice the amount to do it:rolleyes1 guess it pays to read stuff;)

[tinksdad]

Bummer! Canon does make it confusing don't they??? :rolleyes1 :rolleyes1
















Sorry, I couldn't resist! :rotfl2:

[jann1033]

i have never bought a flash, just usually use available light but the time has come to break out of my mold...
i have tried to do research and so am now am of course totally confused...i have a rebel xt, read a flash article on shoot smarter and it kept using ttl auto and manual ...i thought i have ettl 11? so would that be ttl? they recommended promaster 7500 for ttl, lower level canon. i was considering the 430ex ( read the 580 not good with entry level cameras) but can't seem to find if it has the things i want, sigma 500 super ( or 550 what ever it's called, have to look up the numbers again) a metz 54 if they are cheap enough or the promaster...any suggestions .
i know i want to be able to:bounce , have high synch, fill flash, second curtain synch( do most have that?).
the promaster has modeling but not sure what that would be for
i think i am just going to have to get something and play around with it but don't really want to buy the wrong thing.
any help would be very much appreciated but i'm just saying up front i need short easy words cause i am lost.
i would like to stay in the $200 or so range. and since it's my first flash i know i need basic stuff but wouldn't mind being able to use it for a while so if i can get something easy to use but good that might allow some growth.
all that and a cheap price....no doubt you are thinking anything else she wants ?????:rolleyes:
thanks

[jann1033]

well they could change more than one letter in the name to help us more dense types out.....:lmao:

[handicap18]

While I do not use Canon I will give you my thought process when I got the flash for my Nikon D50.

I was looking at 3rd party flashes, mostly the 2 Sigma versionsf (don't know the model numbers off hand). Reviews were that they were just as good as the Nikon ones and were much less in price. I never was able to find a review or post or anything to really convince me that I should definately get the Sigma flash over the Nikon flash.

In the end, I decided that I went and spent enough money on the camera body and because of the lack of convincing reviews (unlike a lot of lenses) I went with the SB-600 Speedlight. Of the 2 big flashes for Nikon, this was the lesser expensive of the 2. It had the swivel head for bounce capablility and I didn't need all the other bells and whistles of the next model up. It has more than all the cabailities I need.

I don't know as much about Canon's flashes, but I would think that the 430EX should be more than enough for you. Looking at some reviews over at amazon it's definately going to be a good fit for those getting into flash photography like yourself.

Good luck.

[fairestoneofall]

I am new to the Canon camera family (just recently bought a 30D). I do have a Nikon D70. I bought a flash for the Nikon to have for birthdays, Christmas and other indoor events that required I use artificial lighting. I went with the SB-600 and liked it (until it broke within the month and had to be sent to Nikon for repairs).

Anyway, for my 30D, I purchased the 580. However, I needed the capability to use it off the camera. Also, with the double rebates, it gave me extra money off my camera body too.

Now, I am not an expert, but I would think the 430 would be fine for what you want it for. As long as you can swivel it around and adjust it vertically, you'll be set.

Just don't buy a Quantaray (I had to get one for my DS's birthday party when the Nikon flash died two days before :mad: ). It was slower than a turtle and a big PITB when we were at WDW. It would fire sometimes, basically when it felt like it. That thing drove me nuts!

[mabas9395]

Get the 430ex. It has all the things you really need without paying more for the extra stuff that the 580ex has but you won't ever use.

And don't forget the rechargable batteries. It takes 4 of them so get the 4 plus 4 more for a spare set.

But after you get your flash, you'll next be looking at diffusers. It just never ends.

[jann1033]

the 3 things the promaster and metz had that the 430 didn't have were an additonal light for fill( so 2 lights), a modeling light ( which i found out lets you know where shadows will fall with out having to take the photo) and a strob feature which i just thought might be kind of fun. i 'd get the metz if i weren't 100 more than all the others. i can't seem to find if the 430 has high synch flash or not. it does have second curtain synch which i also wanted.
a site i read, smart shooter recommended the promaster but not the 580 for the rebel xt and metz recommended the 54mz for the rebel...

so nobody has used the promaster huh?

[gruZ]

I was all set to buy the 580, but the local camera store guy talked me out of it and into the 430. He said exactly what was said above, they're very similiar and you most likely don't need the few additional features of the 580 and will save quite a bit of $$.

I've had the 430 for about 4 months now and have not found it lacking in any respect.

[handicap18]

the 3 things the promaster and metz had that the 430 didn't have were an additonal light for fill( so 2 lights), a modeling light ( which i found out lets you know where shadows will fall with out having to take the photo) and a strob feature which i just thought might be kind of fun. i 'd get the metz if i weren't 100 more than all the others. i can't seem to find if the 430 has high synch flash or not. it does have second curtain synch which i also wanted.
a site i read, smart shooter recommended the promaster but not the 580 for the rebel xt and metz recommended the 54mz for the rebel...

so nobody has used the promaster huh?

Since all this time thus far with the camera but no speedlight flash, are all these features something that you think you'll use a lot or even a little bit?

I know I tend to at first look at all the potential features of something, but after a short time come to realize that I really wont ever use them or would hardly ever use them so I don't really need them.

For additional fill light I'm happy just using the flash with a diffuser on it and that fills everything enough for me. To me using a lot of the extra stuff is a bit overkill. Unless you want to set up some sort of studio type setup then you'll need extra stuff, but even then you'd probably get bigger lights.

That being said, as I always say,,,, in the end the decision is yours.

Happy shopping.

[mabas9395]

The 430ex does have high speed synch. Use it all the time. No modeling light though. Strobe feature might be fun but I wouldn't pay more for it.

[jann1033]

that's the problem...i can get the metz off my list pretty fast due to cost but the promaster is less than the canon:lmao:
i understand what you mean kyle..i do the same thing...i guess i just don't know. i hadn't really thought of a flash as anything more than a light source..now i'm thinking hmm could i use this some unique ways...
i was all set to get the 430( actually thought i did get it but got the wrong one) till i started looking around, the curse of being detail oriented and having to examine every last purchase to the nth degree:rotfl: hmmm,,,maybe that goes beyond detail oriented ;)

[ndelaware]

I bought the 580 for my XT. It has performed as expected, which is wonderfully. I can light up all of Liberty Square at 10pm with it, without blowing out the first person in a white t-shirt. I bought because it has a longer flash range than the rest and the super fast recycle time.

[ndelaware]

The 430 EZ has been discountinued for a long time. Thankfully who ever sold it to you is a reasonable person.

[jann1033]

can any external flash be used for fill flash..the metz 54 mz has a second light that someone said was could be used for fill flash( small light in front of unit, not on the flash head)...so how does fill flash work with out that second light?

[tinksdad]

Sure it can! A fill light is just that.... FILL! So if your main/key light is providing the major portion of the light needed for the subject, the fill light is used to fill the shadows on the flip side of the subject. A fill light is usually stopped down to not balance the key, but to soften shadows.

A fill light could be your strobe (on camera or off) that fills the subjects shadows using natural light source, ie; sun.

Those Metz54 look pretty nice. My understanding is that the main strobe can be bounced from above or from the side and the smaller "fill" light on the front gives that shadow fill from the front of the flash used from the on-camera position.

[jann1033]

i know, i have definite flash envy for the metz...almost wish i hadn't seen that one, then the 430ex would have been just peachy.... I keep thinking it's less than $150 more for the one i really want ie trying to convenience myself it's worth it ...even though i have never used external flash before and basically have no idea what so ever how to do so :rotfl: :rolleyes1 :sad2: wish i wasn't so stinkin practical all the time:rotfl:

[DueyDooDah]

...even though i have never used external flash before and basically have no idea what so ever how to do so :rotfl: :rolleyes1 :sad2: wish i wasn't so stinkin practical all the time:rotfl:

So, let me see if I understand. You bought a flash, you've never used a flash, and you want another. Is that right? You are my kinda photographer. We would get along great.

[jann1033]

So, let me see if I understand. You bought a flash, you've never used a flash, and you want another. Is that right? You are my kinda photographer. We would get along great.

no no not quite there yet, just want to buy one more advanced than i know how to use...then after i buy it not doubt i 'll see another one i want but at present still on "step 1" of the process:rotfl:

[tinksdad]

I've learned over the years that you get what you pay for!! Sometimes a deal will keep you satisfied, but the REAL deal is a piece of equipment that will do what you need it to do without problem, time after time!!

I'd go for it!! :banana: You won't regret it, AND you end of finding all kinds of ways to use it!!!! :rolleyes1 Come one, it's time to step out of your mold!!! :lmao:

[extreme8]

That Metz is a nice piece of hardware.
Until I made the jump from Minolta to Nikon that flash was next on my list of purchases. It was claimed to offer much better flash metering & eliminate pre-flash when not using it in TTL modes.
I haven't been tempted since because the SB-800 is really great and I like the simplicity of the wireless flash capability it offers.

You can add 1 more item to your "pro" column when weighing the advantages of this flash - the programmable and interchangeable flash control module/hot shoe.
As technology changes or if you should ever decide to change camera brands this flash should never become obsolete because you can just replace the module. Getting a Nikon, change to a Nikon module and the flash will work; 5 years from now Canon goes to some new TTL technology, change the module.
You get to avoid the camera companies planned obsolesence!

[jann1033]

now's it's between the metz 54 and speedlight 580...i was thinking of maybe the sigma if i get the speedlight since i don't see much difference in the specs between them except some don't review it as well, a few who i think know what they are talking about said it's fine. i just always feel like canon is overpriced plus i read( maybe on here, i have read so many flash articles my head is ready to explode) canon are made by outside sources so i wonder what quality control will be like

the only things i can see that the 580 ex speedlight has that the metz doesn't is, 58 instead of 54 guide#, which i don't know if that is enough to make a big difference or not, the flash exposure bracketing and the catch light reflector thing (the metz has a secondary reflector, not sure if that is the same).but the metz has the front light which for some reason i really like and i 've seen better reviews for it, i know the weather proofing is supposed to be better than some(not sure if the speedlight is good or not, can;t remember) and i do think the changeable module thing is a great idea...i know i'll want to move up before to long from my rebel xt and i don't know if enough will change that it would make the flash not work or not so that is a good thing
i guess i 'll have to read some more reviews or something...they are almost identical pricewise. supposedly i won some contest and am supposed to get $450 in a web cert. so i'll probably buy it with that when i get it anyway so it's really "free" which is why i figured i should buy the better unit now

[fitzperry]

Which should I get? Ken Rockwell (I know, I know, but he's got some sweet pics of his new baby on the website :rotfl: ) says that the 600 is a waste of money (though I notice he does have a few shots of the baby taken with the 600 instead of the 400). But I'm a little bugged by the fact that it doesn't tilt sideways, so you can't bounce it off the ceiling if you're shooting in portrait orientation. OTOH, I like the idea of a smaller (and less expensive) flash because I'm kinda lazy and prefer not to haul around any more than is absolutely necessary. I figure I'd be more likely to have the 400 around when I need it.

Any thoughts?

[KrazyPete]

I just bought the SB-600 to go with my D80 last weekend. I read Ken's review and had the same debate with myself that you are having.

I think it really comes down to how creative you want to get with the lighting. Ken is probably right when it comes to everyday snapshots, save the money and get the lighter weight SB-400.

However, I like to move my light source around a bit. The SB-600 will act as a wireless slave flash. You put the SB-600 in "remote" mode and the camera's built in flash in "commander" mode (see note below). The camera will send metering information to the SB-600 in a series of very fast pre-flashes and signal it when to fire. So you can use both of your flashes at the same time or set the camera flash to not fire during the exposure and use just the one remote light source from the SB-600.

I think you have more creative control with the SB-600 as an on-camera flash too. The controls and LCD display let you quickly make changes to the focus and output level. So when I take a shot I can glance at the camera screen to check the light and make adjustments on the flash. It's much faster than if I had to find the flash settings in the camera's sub-menus.

Note on wireless "Commander" mode: I know that my D80's built-in flash can be set up as a wireless commander. The SB-600's documentation also mentions the D70 and cameras with Nikon's CLS (Creative Lighting System) for this as well. Check your camera's documention to be sure. On the D80, the setting is under Menu > Custom Setting > Built-In Flash > Commander Mode

Greg

Edit: I found an article on Ken's site about wireless flashes that specifically talks about the SB-600 and SB-800. How to Use Nikon Strobes Wirelessly, for Free! (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ittlslave.htm)

[tinksdad]

I've got the SB-800, SB-24 and SB-28 and use them all for different purposes. The SB-600 and the 800 does the iTTL and the Creative Lighting System which works pretty well. The 600 does not have a remote cord attachment so I ruled it out. Even the older units have that and work well with Pocket Wizards or with a sync cord for off camera flash. If you're never going to use the strobe off the camera hot shoe then either one would be a decent choice, neither one of those units have that option but the SB-600 will be more versatile and has more features.

The CLS is pretty interesting, but I found myself needing more control and liked placing the strobe in places (around corners, etc) that the pre-flash didn't pick up and wouldn't fire the strobe.

Check out Thom Hogans comparison on several models. (http://www.bythom.com/flashcompare.htm)

[fitzperry]

Thanks for the advice. :)

I think it really comes down to how creative you want to get with the lighting. Ken is probably right when it comes to everyday snapshots, save the money and get the lighter weight SB-400.

However, I like to move my light source around a bit. The SB-600 will act as a wireless slave flash. You put the SB-600 in "remote" mode and the camera's built in flash in "commander" mode (see note below). The camera will send metering information to the SB-600 in a series of very fast pre-flashes and signal it when to fire. So you can use both of your flashes at the same time or set the camera flash to not fire during the exposure and use just the one remote light source from the SB-600.

This is the other factor that has me stumped. At this point I'm not sure I see myself getting too creative with the lighting. I much prefer to shoot in natural light. But then again, 3 or 4 years ago I didn't see myself with a dslr and a growing kit of lenses and other paraphernalia, so I hate to limit myself. Hmmmmm. . . . .

[Geoff_M]

A co-worker asked me about this decision and I recommended the 600 in a heartbeat. Right out of the gate, the 600 packs more "punch", there's no way to do vertical bounce with the 400, and the 400 only takes two AA's so you'll be more likely to need to carry extra batteries with you with the 400.

Personally, I think Rockwell is mostly a joke. Bring his name up in a group of pro shooters, and laughter will ensue. Here's a site that's decided that Ken is the "Chuck Norris" of photography:# Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography

# Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]

# Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.

# Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.

# Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.

# Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.

# Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.

# Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth

# Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.

# Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.

# When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories

# Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker

# Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born

# Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once

# Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.

# Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius

# Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.

# Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you

# Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure

# Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.

# When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.

# Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes

# On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine

# Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"

# When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos

# For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.

# Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

# Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF

# Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

# The term tripod was coined after his silhouette

# Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer

# A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell

# Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.

# Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

Link (http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts)

[KrazyPete]

The 600 does not have a remote cord attachment so I ruled it out. Even the older units have that and work well with Pocket Wizards or with a sync cord for off camera flash.

Remote cords and sync cords are available for the SB-600.
Nikon USA: SB-600 AF Speedlight Accessories (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=4&productNr=4802)

The 800 has built in sockets but I'm pretty sure the 600 can be used as a corded remote with the right accessories. I don't use it this way so maybe I'm missing something?

[tinksdad]

Remote cords and sync cords are available for the SB-600.
Nikon USA: SB-600 AF Speedlight Accessories (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=4&productNr=4802)

The 800 has built in sockets but I'm pretty sure the 600 can be used as a corded remote with the right accessories. I don't use it this way so maybe I'm missing something?

Your right, the 600 can be connected with a sync cord but you have to buy an additional part. Most of the other offerings have a connection built in.

Geoff statement about vertical bouncing is really good. When I'm shooting with the strobe on the camera, it's almost always pointed up to bounce off the ceiling. The lighting is better and gives the subject a smooth lighting with some contrast versus the flat light of a face on flash.

[ukcatfan]

Personally, I think Rockwell is mostly a joke. Bring his name up in a group of pro shooters, and laughter will ensue. Here's a site that's decided that Ken is the "Chuck Norris" of photography:

That is too funny!!! :lmao: :rotfl2: :rotfl:

He only has himself to blame for being teased. I say he is like the Paris Hilton of photography. Just like her, he could have laid low and lived his life virtually unknown, but he decided to put himself in the spotlight.

Kevin

[jann1033]

smartshooters listed metz 54 as #1 flash...the metz 58 also looks very good and has a usb outlet for updates...and epinions rated them good with nikon( some special nikon type of thing some 3rd parties dont' work well with the metz works well with...) both are mid $300s not sure how much the nikons are..

the good thing is also when you sell all your stuff and buy a canon (;) )you can update the foot with the 54 and still use the same flash. both also have a neat little fill flash light that can be used if you bounce the main head and all the stuff like hs, modeling light, etc. (that is my anniversary gift this yr that i am " encouraging" husband to buy a few months early)

just thought i'd throw that in the confuse the issue.....

[handicap18]

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the SB-400. Sure its smaller and might be easier to carry around, but how much smaller is than the 600? At least the 600 folds out flat and takes up only a small section of the camera bag. In that regard the 400 would actually take up more room.

No bounce capability at all. Even though you might not have ever used a bounce flash in the past that doesn't mean that once you get one you still one. Its a whole new world of flash photography. The majority of my flash pictures I use the flash in the bounce position (mostly with a diffuser attached). I think it gives better colors to the picture and definately (IMO) distributes the light better.

The 600 is very easy to use and is pretty powerful too. If Ken Rockwell says it is all but uselss then he needs to go into rehab to get off any substance he is taking. If he's not on anything, then he should start taking something to get his head straight. No wonder I never read any of his reviews.

[Steve's Girl]

I have the SB-600 and really like using it. The SB-800 just seemed to be way more than I needed and not to mention quite a bit more expensive. The SB-600 was enough for me with plenty of room to grow into it and does not cost that much more than the SB-400. I probably use the flash more in portrait than in landscape and almost always bouce the flash inside. So, to me, if a flash can't do those things, why bother? Just my very novice opinion.

[KrazyPete]

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the SB-400. Sure its smaller and might be easier to carry around, but how much smaller is than the 600?.

I've seen the 400 next to the 800 in the store and I'd say it's probably about half the size. The 800 and the 600 are very similar in size.

No bounce capability at all.

I think the OP knows this already but the 400 does bounce. It flips up but won't rotate. So bouncing with the camera in a landscape orientation is no problem. When you rotate the camera into a portrait orientation then you're bouncing off the wall instead of the ceiling.

If Ken Rockwell is to be believed, then the built-in flash is awesome for almost every purpose. The 400 gives you some more power and the ability to bounce in one direction.

Personally, I think that if you bought a DSLR then you're a little more interested in taking artful photographs than your average snapshooter. If you are shooting in one of the automatic modes all the time then maybe you should have gotten one of the nicer point and shoot cameras. If you have a DSLR then I would think that you are at least experimenting with shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc. If you are enjoying the creative control that DSLR provides then eventually you will want a flash like the 600 or the 800 (or maybe that Metz, I don't know). That's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth... not much. :thumbsup2

[Geoff_M]

I think the OP knows this already but the 400 does bounce. It flips up but won't rotate. So bouncing with the camera in a landscape orientation is no problem. When you rotate the camera into a portrait orientation then you're bouncing off the wall instead of the ceiling.Wow, that's pretty funny... I've never heard computer page layout terminology applied to camera orientation. I guess I'm "old school" and still call it "horizontal" and "vertical"! Yes, just to clarify, I the 400 will bounce when the camera is shooting horizontally, but not vertically. I bounce vertically too often to be able to use an SB-400.

He only has himself to blame for being teased. I say he is like the Paris Hilton of photography. Just like her, he could have laid low and lived his life virtually unknown, but he decided to put himself in the spotlight.My favorite articles of his are the "reviews" he writes of cameras that he hasn't even held and aren't yet released!

[fitzperry]

Okay, okay, I'll disregard the humble ;) opinions of photography's Chuck Norris/Paris Hilton and spring for the 600. Anyone who thinks the on-camera flash is dandy fine for most purposes has different standards than I. Frankly, even taking into account his reputation, I was rather surprised to see a comment to that effect on Rockwell's site.

Haven't had a chance to check out the Metz yet (thanks for confusing me further jann ;) ) as I've been knee deep in a painting project today, but I will do that before I buy.

Thanks for all the input.

[KrazyPete]

Wow, that's pretty funny... I've never heard computer page layout terminology applied to camera orientation. I guess I'm "old school" and still call it "horizontal" and "vertical"!

Sorry. I was a designer before I was a photographer. Old habits die hard. ;)

[extreme8]

It was photography lexicon waaaay before it was applied to computers!

[KrazyPete]

It was photography lexicon waaaay before it was applied to computers!

Yay! I'm vindicated! :banana:

Actually that makes a lot of sense. I suppose you would tend to shoot a landscape horizontally and a portrait vertically. :thumbsup2

[fitzperry]

It was photography lexicon waaaay before it was applied to computers!

That's what I thought too. :confused3

[Geoff_M]

It was photography lexicon waaaay before it was applied to computers!Perhaps so, but I don't recall seeing a camera maker sell a "portrait grip" for the camera bodies or a camera have a "portrait shutter release" in the past!!! ;)

[wkrider]

EXCELLENT,,,,,I just tried my flash for the hotshoe on the Pentax K100D and it works.

This is just getting better and better...now I have three lenses and a flash for the hotshoe.:cool1: :cool1:
It is a "Focal DT-5000 Zoom"
__________________

[tinksdad]

Nice!! Is that the flash model name? Pentax flash?

[wkrider]

Nice!! Is that the flash model name? Pentax flash?

This is what is written on the flash..."Focal DT-5000 Zoom"

[ukcatfan]

Just remember that b/c it is not a P-TTL, it will only work with manual adjustments to the flash settings.

Kevin

[Groucho]

Hmmm... I've never even bothered trying to use my old big flash on my Pentax DSLR... perhaps I should give it a try; even using manual settings would be a big improvement over the onboard flash, and may cut down on my distaste for flash photos. :)

[Groucho]

Man, I can't believe that I never actually bothered to try it. I had it on it once or twice when I first got the camera but never tried to take a photo. It does, indeed, work great!

My flash (a Sunpak auto 144 D) has very easy-to-read settings for what f-stop, ISO, etc to use. I went into manual mode on the camera, set the ISO to match, set the shutter to 1/60th, and instantly got a vastly superior flash photo when bouncing this off the ceiling. Guess I'll have one more thing to carry around... though I should still buy a "proper" P-TTL flash one of these days.

[photo_chick]

I had read before that using an older flash with a DSLR can cause problems. Something to do with the power in the flash causing a surge that could damage the DSLR.... So this is not true? I just remember reading it somewhere and have never used my older flash with my DSLR for this reason.

[donaldduck1967]

I've read the same thing. Older 35mm Flashes can cause some kind of power surge in the camera. I think I read it on dpreview, can't remember though.

[wkrider]

I had read before that using an older flash with a DSLR can cause problems. Something to do with the power in the flash causing a surge that could damage the DSLR.... So this is not true? I just remember reading it somewhere and have never used my older flash with my DSLR for this reason.


I am going to search around the net to confirm this, I would hate to damage by brand new camera. Thanks for the info.

[donaldduck1967]

this page has some info


http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html

[tinksdad]

Here's another interesting link (http://ok1000.blogspot.com/2006/05/wein-safe-sync-hot-shoe-adapter.html)

Looks like with the Wein Safe Sync Hot Shoe Adapter you can use that older flash with no problems.

[jann1033]

you are all wrong...it goes back to even before either...think paintings....:
:lmao: :artist: :rolleyes1 :p :duck::rotfl: :rolleyes: :teacher: (excess smilies added for your annoyance)

[fitzperry]

you are all wrong...it goes back to even before either...think paintings....:
:lmao: :artist: :rolleyes1 :p :duck::rotfl: :rolleyes: :teacher: (excess smilies added for your annoyance)

:lmao: Excellent point!

[Groucho]

Well, my flash is "yes, probably" on that EOS list. The second link indicates that the Pentax DSLRs can take about 25-30v and my flash does about 6v, maybe a little under 7, depending on who's doing the measuring.

It looked like what happened when one of them got overpowered by an old flash was just that it needed a cold reboot (yank the battery) and a couple minutes to recover.

I used the flash quite a bit today, actually (good timing!) for my son's second birthday party. It works fine on the Lightning McQueen cake I made and the train table I built him. :thumbsup2 Again, much nicer than the onboard flash. It'll do until I dig up the money for a P-TTL one. It's awful nice to have ceiling bounce again! I just wish that I had bothered trying it before, or researching the issue more.

[barrie]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix - I have the 400 and am very pleased with it, especially considering the cost difference. I like the size of it - I think it is less intimidating to people on the other side of the camera. It fits easily into my case and doesn't add much weight to my camera. And I like how simple it is to use.

The only drawback I have found is the problem already stated of not being able to bounce flash in the vertical position, but truthfully, I haven't found this to be much of an issue.

I played with both of them and I'm glad I got this one. I can always trade it later if the vertical bounce becomes more important to me.

Just thought you should hear at least one argument for the 400 for balance. :)

[photo_chick]

I have an old Canon 299t spedlite that I have been holding off on trying on the Rebel XT. It is supposed to have a trigger voltage of about 5v from what I can find. Don't know if I have the nerve to put it on my XT yet!

[fitzperry]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix - I have the 400 and am very pleased with it, especially considering the cost difference. I like the size of it - I think it is less intimidating to people on the other side of the camera. It fits easily into my case and doesn't add much weight to my camera. And I like how simple it is to use.

The only drawback I have found is the problem already stated of not being able to bounce flash in the vertical position, but truthfully, I haven't found this to be much of an issue.

I played with both of them and I'm glad I got this one. I can always trade it later if the vertical bounce becomes more important to me.

Just thought you should hear at least one argument for the 400 for balance. :)

Thanks! It was sort of amusing that not one person had spoken up in favor of the 400. I think they all just feel compelled to disagree with Ken Rockwell. ;)

[wkrider]

Well I just tested the voltage on my Focal DT-5000 Zoom flash since it was not on the list. It reads at 3 volts so I guess I am ok to use it.

[KrazyPete]

Thanks! It was sort of amusing that not one person had spoken up in favor of the 400. I think they all just feel compelled to disagree with Ken Rockwell. ;)

For the record I don't hate Ken Rockwell. I always read his reviews before I buy stuff. I don't base my decision solely on what he has to say. But, I do take it into consideration. :thumbsup2

Did you buy a Flash yet? What's it going to take for you to pull the trigger? ;)

[fitzperry]

For the record I don't hate Ken Rockwell. I always read his reviews before I buy stuff. I don't base my decision solely on what he has to say. But, I do take it into consideration. :thumbsup2

Did you buy a Flash yet? What's it going to take for you to pull the trigger? ;)

Well . . . unfortunately we owe a little more on our taxes than I was anticipating :headache: so I'm feeling kind of guilty about spending the money right now. But we have a couple of trips planned for June (not gonna let a little (big?) tax bill spoil my vacations! :beach: ). I may wait until closer to that time before I take the plunge.

[DisneyGirl4188]

I have a Pentax k100d and am looking into purchasing a flash. Does anyone have recommendations?

[ukcatfan]

That is farther down the road for me, but here is what I know. There are two Pentax brand units available and two Sigma units available. I believe that the Sigma models are not completely 100% compatible, but for the most part are. I think there is one thing that they cannot do correctly, but do not quote me on that. Generally people go with the Pentax ones. It comes down to the strength and if you want to be able to bounce in portrait orientation for picking one. Note that the flash must be a P-TTL type. A TTL will not work correctly.

Kevin

[Groucho]

I believe that some of the Sigmas needed an update to work with K10Ds, and there was no easy way to tell if one you're buying will need it. I think they were upgrading them for free, but then you're stuck shipping it back and forth.

I would probably lean towards the Pentax just to make sure there won't be future issues, but if Sigma was standing behind their stuff, promising free compatibility upgrades and the price was a good bit cheaper, I might end up going that way. Theoretically, a flash should be a lot simpler than a lens and there shouldn't be as much danger of ending up with a junky one.

[AKLforever]

Ok, I got the camera today, K100D, and love everything about it so far, shot about 30 or so shots to test low light, with flash and so on. I notice theres a red tint to all the non flash shots. And the less light you have, the more redish iy seems to be. I tried a couple of things in the camera, but was wondering if this is something you fix on your PC or is there a trick to adjust something on the camera?

thanks all :goodvibes

[Groucho]

You definitely shouldn't be getting a red tint. Hit the Fn button and check the white balance... it should be set to "AWB" which is Auto White Balance.

If it is already set to AWB, maybe you could post an example? That sounds pretty strange. I'd say there's maybe a problem with the camera itself except that you're saying that it works fine with the flash, so I'd lean more towards it being a setting rather than an actual hardware problem.

[AKLforever]

I feel like a total moron, lol, the 6 foot floor lamp we have has a slight red amber tint to it, and its the light source, LOL.
So, I then took the shade off and it works fine now, HAHAHAHA. WOW, ME:rotfl2: <-------moron, lol

[Groucho]

:cool1: :lmao:

It's amazing how the eye adjusts to these things... I just recently read a little on this topic on a photography book from the '80s, and it mentions how our eyes primarily look at color as compared to other things... ie, something that's orangy-red can look red next to something black but orange next to a deeper red... but that's not the way the camera works.

In your case, your eyes subconsciously adjust to the red tints so that you don't even notice it, but when the camera sees it, it's a lot more obvious.

Either way, I'm glad that it was an easy fix. :teeth:

[ukcatfan]

I am glad you figured it out, but now is a great time to mention RAW. If you use it, instead of JPG, you have more to work with to correct it when you do something like this.

Kevin

[go cowboys]

hey, I have recently purchased a d80 and love it but I am realizing I need a speedlight for better pics of the kids indoors. Can you give me advice on where to get the best deal? I am looking at the sb600 just because it is cheaper.

Anyone have one sitting around that they want to sell?

[KrazyPete]

The SB-400 is even cheaper. It's a pretty nifty little bounce flash.

I bought the SB-600 though. It's more powerful. It has an LCD and the controls on the flash. That saves you from have to dig in the camera menus to adjust it. One thing I've really enjoyed is using it off camera with Nikon's CLS. Your D80 will act as a wireless command module to fire the flash remotely with full iTTL. The only downside is that in low light the camera's pre-flashes (to communicate with SB-600) causes my subjects to blink half the time. Still, it's a lot of fun.

The SB-800 gets you even more power and greater zoom range. It will act like a wireless command module itself. It also has a built in bounce card. But there's only one feature that I wish my SB-600 had, a remote cord socket. ;)

I bought mine at Best Buy. I had some Reward Zone credits from when I bought my camera. So I ended up getting the flash for under $200 and I bought it on triple points day (another $600 to reward zone account). If I was going to buy it online I probably would have gotten it from B&H.

[Steve's Girl]

In the below photo, I bounced the flash off the ceiling and had a Sto-fen diffuser on the flash to soften the light. And I still got a nasty shadow! I have a love hate thing with my flash. What am I doing wrong here? I know shadows can be removed in post-processing (well, some have the skills to remove shadows - I do not!), but I prefer to get it right the first time and not have to alter the photo later.

http://wendymitchell.smugmug.com/photos/160225000-L.jpg

[Anewman]

What were your exposure settings?

Maybe set them more for available light and use the flash more as fill.

Also maybe close the door in the background and move them(family) a bit farther away from the background.

[Steve's Girl]

What were your exposure settings?



Used ap. priority mode f8, 1/15, ISO 400. I chose f8 because I was concerned if I used a larger ap. that the depth of field would be too shallow and due to the fact that I was pretty close, some of the faces would be out of focus.

[handicap18]

In the below photo, I bounced the flash off the ceiling and had a Sto-fen diffuser on the flash to soften the light. And I still got a nasty shadow! I have a love hate thing with my flash. What am I doing wrong here? I know shadows can be removed in post-processing (well, some have the skills to remove shadows - I do not!), but I prefer to get it right the first time and not have to alter the photo later.

http://wendymitchell.smugmug.com/photos/160225000-L.jpg

I put your post in quotes because I just got a red X, when I do the quote I can see the pic.

I agree with Anewman. Move them further from the wall. Thats a bit to close. Typically for this kind of shot I'll use ISO 400, f/5.6 and 1/60th. The 1/15th shutter you said you used, might be to long and might be enhancing the shadow.

[MarkBarbieri]

I concur that you should move them from the wall. If the background is very light and very close, you're more likely to have shadow problems.

I wouldn't think that you would need a diffuser if you are bouncing off of the ceiling (unless it is quite low and your subject quite close).

Actually, I'm having trouble squaring the shadow with a ceiling bounce. Looking at the shadow, it looks like the light source is relatively small (sharply defined shadow) and about level with the heads in the picture (the appears level with the heads) and a bit to your right (the shadows are left of the subject). Are you sure that didn't have relatively bright lamp to your back right that was causing the shadow and not the flash?

There are other indications that you had a bright, non-diffuse light source. When looking at the original size photo, I see three bright reflections in the woman's glasses. One is quite large and bright. I'm guessing that it was the cause of the shadow and not the bounce off of the ceiling.

I have to admit that I am terrible at lighting, so take everything I say with several very large, poorly lit grains of salt.

[Steve's Girl]

I concur that you should move them from the wall. If the background is very light and very close, you're more likely to have shadow problems.

I wouldn't think that you would need a diffuser if you are bouncing off of the ceiling (unless it is quite low and your subject quite close).

Actually, I'm having trouble squaring the shadow with a ceiling bounce. Looking at the shadow, it looks like the light source is relatively small (sharply defined shadow) and about level with the heads in the picture (the appears level with the heads) and a bit to your right (the shadows are left of the subject). Are you sure that didn't have relatively bright lamp to your back right that was causing the shadow and not the flash?

There are other indications that you had a bright, non-diffuse light source. When looking at the original size photo, I see three bright reflections in the woman's glasses. One is quite large and bright. I'm guessing that it was the cause of the shadow and not the bounce off of the ceiling.

I have to admit that I am terrible at lighting, so take everything I say with several very large, poorly lit grains of salt.


I think the only other light source was a ceiling fixture. The room was quite small and from what I remember, the light would have been overhead probably between me and where the fam was sitting.

[MarkBarbieri]

I think the only other light source was a ceiling fixture. The room was quite small and from what I remember, the light would have been overhead probably between me and where the fam was sitting.

That shows what little I know.

[KrazyPete]

Did you point the flash towards the ceiling then turn the camera on it's side? Maybe you were actually flashing into another mirror on your right?

Looking in the mirror behind the family it looks like the room behind you is getting a lot of light from somewhere.

[Steve's Girl]

Did you point the flash towards the ceiling then turn the camera on it's side? Maybe you were actually flashing into another mirror on your right?

Looking in the mirror behind the family it looks like the room behind you is getting a lot of light from somewhere.

Ohhhhh...you might be right. I'll have to think about that for a minute! We were in a hurry because we were running late for a family event, I just grabbed the flash out of the bag and snapped a few photos. I hate it when I get in a hurry and make stupid mistakes like that!

Thanks for picking up on that! I have been driving myself crazy trying to figure out what I screwed up.

[Lachesis00]

I have a Canon 20d. I use a Speedlight external flash. My photos have been coming out with odd tones. And I am hoping someone can help me. I bounce the flash behind or above me. Never right at the subject...

I seem to do fine w/o the flash w/natural light... it is using the flash I am stinking at. :rotfl2: I am wondering if there is any suggestion you can give me.

What does Flash: flash fired, compulsory flash mode mean? I never change how the flash fires.

Too dark and a brown tone:
http://spencephotography.smugmug.com/photos/161507664-M-1.jpg
http://spencephotography.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=161507664 EXIF info

Again too dark with the brownish tone
http://spencephotography.smugmug.com/photos/162793804-M-2.jpg
http://spencephotography.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=162793804 EXIF


Super dark with a blue/gray hue.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1394/542179325_f9d11a7974.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS 20D
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/3.2
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: -1/3 EV
Flash: Flash fired

[photo_chick]

What is your white balance set on?

[mabas9395]

The EXIF links don't work for me, and I see that your gallery is password protected.

I see from the third one that your exposure bias is set to -1/3, that will make your photos darker.
I also wonder about your white balance, especially on the 3rd one.
I've noticed that when I bounce the flash, the camera doesn't do as good of a job of knowing how to expose the scene (i.e. how strong to fire the flash). And how could it? It doesn't know how far away the wall/ceiling is that you are bouncing from. So whenever I bounce or use my home made diffuser, I've found that I often have to take a few test shots and adjust either my EC or FEC to get the exposure I want.
The last think is what color is the wall/ceiling you are bouncing off of? The light will take on some of the color of surface you are bouncing off of. So if your walls are tan-ish in color then that could give your photos the brownish tone you are seeing.

[seashoreCM]

Are you sure the flash is powerful enough to be bounced at the ceiling or a wall and still put enough light on the subject?

Does the flash unit itself have a setting for "maximum" light output as opposed to "automatic" exposure?

When a flash unit has automatic flash exposure, there is a sensor that points in the direction of the subject and a microprocessor that determines the overall scene brightness. Sometimes the flash unit and camera have to be coordinated (which restricts what brand flash works automatically with what brand camera) and the camera has the sensor to guess the overall scene brightness.

And don't forget that for a given camera and flash unit, bounce flash requires a larger lens opening or higher ISO compared with direct flash which rule always applied, for film cameras too. This is always guesswork since it depends on the color of the ceiling and how high the ceiling is.

Not sure what "flash fired" means but some external flash units have no electrical connection with the camera and the camera's built in flash triggers the firing of the external unit. There are compatibility issues. Many cameras flash twice or three times to combat red-eye and the flash unit has to know which flash is the one with the shutter open. This is a coordination that relates to specific makes and models of cameras that the flash unit is intended for. In addition someone else's camera may trigger your flash if several people are taking pictures.

Not sure what "compulsory flash" means but many cameras have selections for "flash all the time" (plain lightning bolt icon), "flash when needed" (lightning bolt with "A"), or flash turned off (lightning bolt with circle and diagonal slash).

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

[tinksdad]

What is your white balance set on?

I think this is the problem. Most flashes (on camera or off) are about 5200-5500 kelvin. By bouncing the light you're not overpowering the ambient light source, especially if your camera is set at 1/60 shutter. So a mixing of light is occurring and causing some problems.

If you're shooting inside under incandescent lights (tungsten) you should gel, or put a color corrected filter over the strobe for best color match. Same thing with color matching light from the sun or light from fluorescents. Each have their own color temperature that will add odd casts to the shot. For best results, all the light should be the same temperature so the camera doesn't get confused. Of course, this is downright impossible to do in real life without doing more setup than its worth for the shot. There will be a compromise that will work better for you. Check out this link for a more thorough explanation (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-using-gels-to-correct.html).

For grins, try the tungsten setting next time you shoot inside and see if it does help.

BTW, the baby is adorable!!!:love:

[MarkBarbieri]

I couldn't get the EXIF links to work.

Flash: flash fired, compulsory flash mode
"flash fired" means that the flash was used while taking the picture. I think that "compulsory flash mode" means that you had the flash turned on (or the built in flash popped up). I read it as the camera saying that it was told to use the flash.

As has already been stated, getting proper white balance while using a mixture of flash and ambient lighting can be tricky, particularly if the ambient lighting is far from being white.

Personally, I'm not a fan of messing with gels and such. That's too much hassle for me. I just white balance to suit my tastes in post production.

Most photo tools make white balancing really easy. I would suggest, however, that you be careful to use consistent settings for photos taken under the same conditions. I used to white balance each photo by itself. When you looked through several taken in the same place, the white balance would vary too much between shots.

As for the exposure levels, I don't see them as bad at all. If you went any brighter, you'd blow out your highlights.

Here's a quick color corrected version of the bottom picture. I just pulled it up on PS CS2, went to levels, and did a mid-tone white balance correction on the shadow on the white blanket behind the babies head.
http://barbieri.smugmug.com/photos/163723353-O.jpg

[MarkBarbieri]

Oh, I guess I also removed a few scratches. Habit.

[tinksdad]

Nice job Mark!!

Take the photos in RAW, then you can manipulate the white balance in PP too. It can work wonders!

[Lachesis00]

LOVE IT!!

I have photoshop and it wouldn't be a big deal normally but my computer was fried 3 weeks ago (long story short, my BIL robbed us-- twice-- well tried ha ha second time, I had ppl in the house {when I had baby} He got mad and flipped the power switch outside several times blowing out my computer).
Sadly my husband's old Dell isn't good enough to really run photoshop or any editing program. Makes me so mad.
If I can find a windows boot CD then I could reload windows ("windows" is on my F drive, thats how it came when I bought the computer).

VERY Frustrating I can't edit with photoshop.

As for the white balance, I normally don't mess with it *blush*. I normally have no issues w/o the flash. I am just now learning the flash so I am guessing I should get something to set white balance? Kinda sucks using program and having to do it each time... I understand why but kinda puts a hamper on taking photos on the fly.

Oh, I guess I also removed a few scratches. Habit.

[PaulD]

I do a lot of flash photography at work and I'll tell you that Canon's E-TTL can be very problematic. When I train people on our Canon gear I explain that there are two exposures in this type of photography: the ambient light exposure and the flash exposure. It's important to understand that they act independently of each other. One does not affect the other. You sometimes have to make a decision when there is a mixed lighting situation.

If you choose to use the ambient light you may have problems with white balance when the flash and the other lighting don't have the same approximate color temperature. The solution is to use gels (as mentioned above) or to simply use the flash as the sole source of light. To do this switch to Manual mode and set your shutter speed to something fast enough to make the meter (which calculates ambient light) read extreme underexposure. Indoors I usually have my settings at f/5.6, 1/100, ISO 100-400. Bounced flash looks much more natural so you're on the right track there but the light can take on the color of the surface that you are bouncing off of. Try to use white walls and ceilings.

So now that you're using your flash as the sole source of illumination the unpredictability of the flash system becomes apparent. You will almost always need to set your flash exposure compensation (FEC) to at least +2/3 or your shots will look grossly underexposed. Be very aware of the tone of the subject that you are photographing. If, as in your last photo, the subject is very light then the flash system will underexpose. You will need to compensate with additional FEC or learn to use the flash exposure lock button (the one marked *). Also remember that the subject under the active focus point will receive the greatest weight when the camera calculates flash exposure.

Flash on the Canons is not very predictable. I think that the system was designed to be used as fill flash in well lit conditions not as a single source of illumination. As a result when you use flash you have to really be aware of how your photos are turning out and be ready to make adjustments and try again. After you've taken many many flash photos you'll start to get a feel for the quirks of E-TTL. It's better than it used to be but it's still not great.

[Lachesis00]

How is this?? No bouncing... flash right on. My girlfriend has the same problem when bouncing....


http://spencephotography.smugmug.com/photos/164094336-M-1.jpg


http://spencephotography.smugmug.com/photos/164095454-M-1.jpg

[PaulD]

Hmmm...

My guess is that the white balance is getting confused. For instance in the second photo you've got a large area filled with a very warm color (yellow). Maybe the camera is trying to compensate because it thinks the photo is too warm and so you end up with a bluish skin tone.

In the first photo you've got a large area with no color (the black rug) and a relatively small area with skin tones and a blue shirt. Maybe the camera is trying to find a happy medium between the two colors and an overly warm tint is the result.

I'm kinda guessing here so take it with a grain of salt.

So, try locking your white balance by using the "Flash" setting or learn to use Custom WB. Let me know if this helps. I'm intrigued...

[jann1033]

not trying to hijack but wondering, is that why they have kelvin white balances on the 30 d? i was trying to figure out what you'd use them for. would kelvin be a more consistent wb to use with flash?( since i know nothing about flash)

ps he is so cute!

[MICKEY88]

http://images26.fotki.com/v889/photos/8/86568/336006/baby-vi.jpg
http://images26.fotki.com/v892/photos/8/86568/336006/baby2-vi.jpg
http://images26.fotki.com/v889/photos/8/86568/336006/baby3-vi.jpg

[MarkBarbieri]

not trying to hijack but wondering, is that why they have kelvin white balances on the 30 d? i was trying to figure out what you'd use them for. would kelvin be a more consistent wb to use with flash?( since i know nothing about flash)

ps he is so cute!

That's for taking pictures of people named Kelvin. They are notorious picky about their WB.

Seriously, if you are using studio lighting, your bulb probably is set to fire at a particular color temperature in kelvin, so you could just match that. You might also use a color temperature meter and using the kelvin setting to adjust your white balance to match.

I've never used the kelvin settings and can't recall hearing from anyone that does. The people I know that are picky about white balancing use custom white balance based on either some form of grey card or an expodisc. If you were doing product photography where you colors had to be exact, that's probably not good enough.

For my shooting, I usually like slightly warmer than correct WB anyway, so I leave it on auto and adjust it to suit my tastes.

[jakoky]

Hi there, i am seriously thinking about getting the canon 430 EX for my camera but have a question...i have been reading up on it and realize the benefits of indoor photography and fill flash in daylight, but what i am not sure of is how it would affect my nightime pics....We are headed to DL :cool1: :banana: :cool1: in a few weeks, and am wondering how much the flash would help me in my nighttime pics...Also, is it a huge help indoors taking action shots...my oldest daughter cheerleads and my son plays hockey and of course, getting great shots indoors is difficult(without a dslr)...i just wondered if it would help with these pics also...my youngest daughter plays soccer outdoors, thankfully i can get great pics already here...thanks of any and all advice of buying this flash...for the amount of money i just want to make sure it is really worth it...

sharon

[gokenin]

I have the S3 and was wondering when people take night shots do you use the flash ? I know the flash isnt that pwerful so it really isnt going to help with any real distance shots which would be most of the shots at Disney so was just wonders how effective really is the flash at night?

[Steve's Girl]

If you are taking a close up photo of family, etc., the flash would be useful. However, for night parades, fireworks, etc. the flash will really not be any help. In fact, using the flash will ruin a lot of night time WDW photos (I'm speaking from experience here :sad2: )

[boBQuincy]

A small amount of fill flash can help with night parades, as long as it does not overpower the main lighting. The effect should be subtle and barely even noticeable unless flash/noflash photos are compared directly.

To do this the flash power should be reduced by at least 1 or 2 stops. Sometimes it is difficult to accurately predict the effect (for me anyway) so I take several images and adjust the flash power until I get the effect I want.

[Master Mason]

It depends on the shot your looking for, sometimes it will help, and sometimes it will compleatly kill your shot.

One example is the parades, your flash would be effective, but in most cases your going to expose things to the picture that your really not supposed to be seeing.

But I always chuckle at folks that are taking pics of fireworks with their flash.

[ukcatfan]

I have never tried, but a flash diffuser might be effective for night parades.

Another technique for getting good night shots with a flash is the night portrait mode that many cameras have. It takes a longer exposure in order to properly expose the background, so be sure to have the camera on a tripod and to tell the subject to be still even after the flash is complete.

If you do not have this mode, it can be done in manual mode. First, set the exposure correctly for the background without flash but then use a flash. You might have to play with the flash intensity to get it right.

Kevin

[gokenin]

thanks I have used the flash on a couple of tries at night pictures and I feel it tends to make it really look darker outside of like a three or four foot range unless I up the power to the flash. I was just checking with you guys to see if what I thought was right that being that flash at night is really only good for close range or fill flash

[lsayd]

Hi all! My son has a Canon 30D and we plan on giving him an external flash for Christmas. Any recommendations in the $250 range (I know that's not much) would be greatly appreciated!

[Miss Kelly]

Canon 430EX should be about in your price range. Don't forget a diffuser. :)

[lsayd]

Thanks - the Canon looks better than the Sunpak he was talking about (he used to work for Ritz Camera).

[deletedpenguin]

430EX would be a great choice, and as Miss Kelly said, a diffuser makes all the difference.

[ktulu]

I am very happy with my 430ex and Gary Fong Light Diffuser II, although the Whale Tail looks interesting.

[lsayd]

I figured I'd get the diffuser as a "stocking stuffer". Thanks for the replies!

[PhotobearSam]

Is there anything I can do?:guilty:

[Geoff_M]

If in-camera re-formatting doesn't stop the card from acting up, then the card is likely "toast". Is your card a Lexar, by chance? The Lexar brand has gotten a black eye in the last year or so because a lot of their cards (particularly the 80x "Write Accelerated" ones) are are dropping like flies. Lexar is replacing them for free, but that doesn't help with lost images.

See: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=26161
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=24661

[PhotobearSam]

No...it's a Sandisk...

I don't care if I can't use it ever again, I was just hoping to get some of the Photos off the card.
:sad1:

[SharonLowe]

Did your CF card come with data recovery software? Some of Sandisk's cards do and you can try that to get the images back. I've had good luck in some cases including my latest crash of a 4 gig card just last week. You can download a demo to see if it works:

http://www.lc-tech.com/software/rescueprodetail.html

They also offer a discount on file recovery services but those can be expensive.

I had 2 lexar 4 gig pro cards fail. Lexar replaced plus recovered the images at no cost for me. A pain but I learned that cards larger than 2 gigs frequently have problems so I now mostly stick to 2 gig cards. The 4 gig from last week was my last time using them unlesss I have an emergency and use up all my 2 gigs and don't want to delete the images from the cards.

[MICKEY88]

A pain but I learned that cards larger than 2 gigs frequently have problems so I now mostly stick to 2 gig cards. .

really ????

wow, where did you learn that.??

I guess I've been lucky I shoot with an 8 gig card all the time and have had no problems..

[PhotobearSam]

Sharon...I like your SMILIE...LOL

Thanks for the advice

[SharonLowe]

really ????

wow, where did you learn that.??

I guess I've been lucky I shoot with an 8 gig card all the time and have had no problems..

Long time ago so could have been addressed. Has to do with the FAT32 file system, which has to be used above 2 gig, not being as stable or as readily recognized by cameras as FAT16. All I know is that I have had 3 memory cards fail - all were 4GB cards - 2 Lexar Pro 80x (had to have them replaced and files recovered by Lexar) and 1 Sandisk UltraII (was able to get images and fix myself).

[MICKEY88]

Long time ago so could have been addressed. Has to do with the FAT32 file system, which has to be used above 2 gig, not being as stable or as readily recognized by cameras as FAT16. All I know is that I have had 3 memory cards fail - all were 4GB cards - 2 Lexar Pro 80x (had to have them replaced and files recovered by Lexar) and 1 Sandisk UltraII (was able to get images and fix myself).

hmmm the card I've been using is a Ridata 8 gig Supreme Series....

I actually thought I had a problem with it on several photo shoots, until I researched and discovered that it's a camera problem...
apparently the Minolta 7D has an FFB problem..

[PhotobearSam]

No, it did not work...I guess it's a lost cause.:headache:

[SharonLowe]

Call the manufacturer's tech support line - they might be able to help. Also, try formatting the card in camera, if it will, and then run the data recovery program again.

[AndrewWG]

All,

Does anyone have any flash recommendations for a Canon 30D? I see the 2 most popular Speedlite's, but boy are they expensive. I think they are the 430 and the 530 models. Are there any decent non-Canon models out there that would be just as good? I know nothing about using a flash other than simple bounce and diffusion techniques so I don't need anything fancy. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Andy

[Master Mason]

I think the canon models are the 430 and 580. I have the 430 and it does everything I need it to do. I think it was about $250 or so.

Sigma makes flashes that are less expensive, but I understand that ther are limitations to them. There is another company that Jan was talking about that supposedly gets good reviews, but I can't remember the name.

[jann1033]

metz is the name but the price is the same as the more expensive canon one.. i have heard and seen some decent reviews for sigma and there is a cheapish one promaster that is supposed to be good for the money ( there was something i didn't like about that one but don't remember what it was now,,,)...check out smart shooter article..you might have to register but it's free and so far i haven't gotten a lot of junk from them
http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc050.html
edited cause....
i found this email that explains why i decided against the promaster
Janet:

The Promaster 7500DX flash does not offer high speed sync. It will sync
up to 1/200th sec. on the digital Rebel XT. The secondary fill flash that can
be turned on with the switch on the back right of the flash is to fill in shadows
under the eyes, nose and chin when bouncing the flash off a low white ceiling
in a group or portrait situation.

Flashexpert

i wanted high speed sync but other than that is was a nice flash for i think around $300

[blackjackdelta]

I use a Canon 580, does everything I need plus.

Jack

[jann1033]

the promaster was closer to 200 but now i am not sure if they have changed the model...maybe try a local camera shop and see ...don't know if dodd camera is local or national but their promaster was pretty close to what i would have paid online.

[left210]

Anyone use a mini USB drive for back up of your photos? I have approx 7000 photos on my computer and have been backing them up to CDs but am wondering if it would be better to use a flash drive. What are the chances of one of them failing and losing pics that way? Also, what size drive would I need for 7000+ pictures. I saw some in the ads for a 2 GB & a 4 GB. Would I need more than one for that many pictures? Thanks for your help.

[webshark3]

Use both. It's cheap enough. Flash is cheap and pretty reliable. CDs are even cheaper. With both, no real worries....

7000 photos? how large is the average photo?

[Master Mason]

How much storage you would need depends on how large the files are. If you open your my computer, and then go and right click on your picture folder, that will tell you how much storage you would need for what you have.

However that should NOT replace your cd or dvd back up, all drives will evenutally fail.

[left210]

Thanks for the quick responses. I do not know how large the photos are and am not at home right now to check but they are stored in Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 right now if that gives you any idea? I didnt realize all drives will eventually fail so it is good to know to use both sources for back up. Any idea on how many photos fit on 2 GB vs. 4 GB? I realize this depends on size of photos but are there any averages.

[Code]

Thanks for the quick responses. I do not know how large the photos are and am not at home right now to check but they are stored in Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 right now if that gives you any idea? I didnt realize all drives will eventually fail so it is good to know to use both sources for back up. Any idea on how many photos fit on 2 GB vs. 4 GB? I realize this depends on size of photos but are there any averages.

File size depends on megapixels and level of JPG compression, but also varies with picture content as pics with a lot of fine detail are less compressible. A wildly generalized rule would be about half a megabyte per megapixel.

I don't consider flash drives a good backup solution for digital pics because you'll pay about the same amount for an X-sized flash drive as you will for an X-sized memory card (memory cards are flash memory). I would recommend an external hard drive instead, in addition to your CD backups.

[webshark3]

There aren't any averages, since file sizes can range from 20k to 20MB. What model camera do you have? We can help from there....

[webshark3]

I don't consider flash drives a good backup solution for digital pics because you'll pay about the same amount for an X-sized flash drive as you will for an X-sized memory card (memory cards are flash memory). I would recommend an external hard drive instead, in addition to your CD backups.

I would definitely agree with you (heck, I backup to DVD AND a RAID Drive with copies sent to a third unit :) ).

But it depends on how much you shoot. My FatherinLaw has a Nikon D50, but shoots so infrequently, that I prefer he just back up his photos to a 2GB USB Flash Drive since rate of failure will be less than a Hard Disk. I then just rip a few CDs for him so he has redundancy. It'll take him a few years to fill up the 2GB ($14.99) USB stick at his rate.

[handicap18]

I have thought about the flash drives as an additional backup, but haven't gotten around to it. I don't think its very cost effective compared to CD's and DVD's. Right now I only back up my files on DVD's (though some of my older stuff are on CD's).

Since I got my Nikon D50 in Jan of '06 I have taken approx 7,000 pics (probably a little more actually). I currently have them backed up on 4 different DVD's. A single side DVD can hold 4.7GB's worth of files. I think right now I'm taking up around 11GB with just my JPEG's from my D50. I get around 2,000 JPEG files per DVD. RAW files are another thing and on their own DVD. CD's hold less than 800MB, though they are less expensive than DVD's.

You can buy a 25 pack of DVD's for about $30 or so, maybe less. 4.7 x 25 = 117.5GB. 1 4GB flash card goes for about $30. Lets say you need 3 4GB flash cards to hold your files. Thats $90. For about $20 or so more you can get an external DVD burner (USB 2.0 plug in) and a 25 pack of DVD's. Even less if you get an internal DVD burner.

[Groucho]

You can buy a 25 pack of DVD's for about $30 or so, maybe less. 4.7 x 25 = 117.5GB. 1 4GB flash card goes for about $30. Lets say you need 3 4GB flash cards to hold your files. Thats $90. For about $20 or so more you can get an external DVD burner (USB 2.0 plug in) and a 25 pack of DVD's. Even less if you get an internal DVD burner.
You're paying $30 for a 25-pack of DVDs? Ouch! You can often find a 50-pack for $20-25. I usually try to pay no more than $40 for 100, though I sometimes go a few bucks over.

Ultimately, I agree - it doesn't make sense to use flash memory in USB format to back up flash memory in memory card format. Especially when you can pick up a little USB memory card reader and turn your camera's memory card into a regular USB flash drive.

[safetymom]

I don't use a flash drive but I do use the Epson photo viewer. It may be more than you want to spend but I like taking it instead of the laptop.

[MarkBarbieri]

I would strongly recommend using DVDs as backups rather than flash memory. Neither is perfect - both degrade over time. With a properly stored DVD, I think that degredation time is longer than with flash memory.

The main difference to me is that the cost per gig is much, much cheaper with a DVD. After spending $50 on a burner, the discs can be bought for less than $0.30/disc. Ultra-high quality archival discs can be bought for less than $2/disc. That works out to less than $0.50 per gigabyte.

Because the cost of DVDs is so low, I always backup to a pair of discs. That allows me to store the discs in different locations. That protects me from media failure as well as from a local catastrophe.

Either will work. I suppose that some people might find the flash memory cards marginally easier to use. I just think that the difference between spending $0.1 to $0.5 per gig for discs compared with $10/gig with flash makes the discs a much cheaper option.

The main thing is to do it. If you'll back up on flash and won't do it with discs, then use flash.

With either option, I would recommend doing a backup refresh more than once every 10 years. If you intend to leave them along longer than that, I would recommend the archival quality DVDs. And always make two backups and store them in different buildings so that you are protected from fires, floods, etc.

[mabas9395]

I have a backup internal hard drive that does weekly backups of my photos plus I back-up to DVD after I get enough shots (and keep them off site).

But I was shopping at a large discount mega-store last night an noticed that I can get a portable external hard drive with as much space as my main drive for less than $100. I am thinking that it might be a good idea to get one and just do a complete c: drive backup and leave it at my MIL's house. That way if something ever happens to my computer desk, my living room, my house, my neighborhood, my town, etc, etc I know my files will be protected.

And its not just my photos, the amount of time it would take to reinstall all of my applications (and trying to find the activation key numbers) and getting it all customized the way I like it, it is worth the $100 insurance policy that an external HD provides.

The problem with me is that I will probably just keep talking about it until something bad does happen, then I'll wish I would have acted.

[webshark3]

FYI, If you OS or c: drive fails.

It's not as easy as just "copying your c: drive back" from a backup. At least not with Windows. You'll want to "ghost" it to a backup drive.

[safetymom]

Hard drives have been known to fail so I wouldn't just back up to a hard drive.

[Anewman]

Hard drives have been known to fail so I wouldn't just back up to a hard drive.

Yes hard drives fail, but if it is a "back up" it implies that it is not the only copy of said files.

I would agree that a single set of files on the main hard drive is asking for trouble, but if you have a second(or external) hard drive with a copy of the files on each it should be pretty safe. IMO it would be a very good solution especially since it takes no real effort to back up this way, while some of us might get lazy burning to DVD or using other methods.


But I do have my raw files on multiple hard drives and I also do a periodic burn to DVD.

[safetymom]

I talk with far too many people that just back up to a hard drive because it is cheap and easy.

[mabas9395]

Hard drives have been known to fail so I wouldn't just back up to a hard drive.

I wasn't thinking about using an external hard drive to replace my backup internal drive and DVD burning, just adding an off-site external drive backup of my "ghosted" hard drive as an extra layer of backup protection.

[gottaluvPluto]

Just bought it, and it occurred to me as I looked at off-brand flashes (Metz 54 and Sigma 500 vs Sony's 56)--where are these things made? With all the quality control issues making the headlines these days, I'm redoubling my efforts to make value decisions, not price decisions.

Having said that, what's the best value? Where are the various flashes made? I noticed my lenses were made someplace that's been having a lot of trouble of late, and would like to avoid any worries.

Comments on effectiveness and how well it plays with the alpha100 are appreciated (feel free to dumb it down, I'm a newbie), as well as guidance on how well (or poorly) the instructions were written (as for comments on using the search function--I did that for several hours yesterday, and not just on this website, so you can skip those comments).

Thanks in advance,

[MICKEY88]

Just bought it, and it occurred to me as I looked at off-brand flashes (Metz 54 and Sigma 500 vs Sony's 56)--where are these things made? With all the quality control issues making the headlines these days, I'm redoubling my efforts to make value decisions, not price decisions.

Having said that, what's the best value? Where are the various flashes made? I noticed my lenses were made someplace that's been having a lot of trouble of late, and would like to avoid any worries.

Comments on effectiveness and how well it plays with the alpha100 are appreciated (feel free to dumb it down, I'm a newbie), as well as guidance on how well (or poorly) the instructions were written (as for comments on using the search function--I did that for several hours yesterday, and not just on this website, so you can skip those comments).

Thanks in advance,

I don't have the Sony, but I have a Minolta 7D, ,,I have 2 Sigma 500dg super flashes.

I originally had the Minolta 5600, I bought my first Sigma as a backup flash...

my Minolta died in the middle of a photo shoot so I grabbed the sigma finished the shoot, and was quite pleased with the results,

so pleased in fact that when I found out my Minolta couldn't be repaired, I briefly considered getting the sony 56, which is pretty much a rebranded minolta 5600, but then figure why pay the extra when I knew the sigma did just as good a job for over 100 dollars less, so I bought my second sigma ...

I think they've recently released a newer version that should work well with the new sony dslr.s

[gottaluvPluto]

...and the advice. I looked at the new Sigma EF 530 DG Super and the 500 Super, and then saw someone's test photos from a KM3600 (Sony 36), KM 5600 (Sony 56), Sigma 500 Super, and a Metz 54: http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/06/12/flash-choices-for-the-alpha-dslrs/

I didn't want the trouble of figuring out how to mess with the exposure vs. flash power of the Sigma 500, and didn't know if they fixed it with the 530 (no reviews that I could find) and so went with the Sony 56. Several people said to buy the Metz 54 because it gets rid of lazy eye results the other flashes seem to have and because it's such a "great" flash that "you'll be able to use on other cameras if you switch" (like I can just throw $1K+ around on a nice camera and accessories at the drop of a hat); however, the instructions are less than impressive, and it doesn't do HSS off camera (plus it's nearly another $100, even before you find out whether it comes with the shoe adapter for the Sony, which might cost another $100 if you have to order it--it wasn't really clear, and Metz seems to be selling to Nikon and Canon owners anyways--they still refer to their Metz flashes being "for the Minolta").

Nobody ever answered where they were all made, so I'll post that when we receive it. Hope this helps some other photog alpha100 a100 alpha newbie. I'll throw in some more phrases to make this thread come up on your search (I hate searching message forums, the search function always bites, and then some wiseacre always says "Did you even search?"): Sony HVL-F56AM , Sony HVL-F36AM , Sigma EF-500 DG ST, Sigma EF-500 DG Super, Metz Mecablitz 54MZ-4i, Metz SCA 3302 M7 (shoe adapter).

We're looking forward to some nice portraits and landscapes; so far the pictures we've taken are definitely classified under L for learning.

We'll eventually banish the nakedness of our home's walls forever! Cheers!

p.s. Moderator, if search is giving disboards trouble, do what dpreview.com does: limit search to once every 20 seconds! It wasn't too annoying, and probably keeps their servers from getting swamped.

[orchjoe]

On average how many compaq flash cards do you bring to Disney??

If you are shooting raw do you bring the big guns (4G or 8G)???

I am trying to deciede what I want to shoot in either raw or jpg....

[MarkBarbieri]

Does Compaq make flash cards? ;)

The amount varies a lot from person to person. It depends on what resolution your camera is, whether you shoot RAW, and whether you dump the cards each night. I shoot RAW with an 8mp camera and dump all of my images each night so that I start with clean cards each day. I usually bring a couple of 8 gig cards.

[SharonLowe]

Since I have had card failures on all of my 4Gig cards, I no longer use anything larger than 2 gig cards (and they are faster too). As Mark said, it will depend on how many megapixels your camera shoots and whether you do raw, jpeg, or raw+jpeg. I download and back mine up each day but if possible, like to keep them on the card too as a 3rd back-up. So, I have 8 2Gig CF cards, 2 2Gig SD cards (my camera takes both), and 2 1Gig SD cards. My camera is over 16 megapixels and I only shoot in raw, so they take up lots of space. I have filled 16 gigs on a trip; the SD cards serve mostly as back-up but they get used too.

[orchjoe]

I am shooting with an canon Xti and I guess I am just worried about having enough room.

Is there a benefit to shooting in raw+jpeg? I mean unless you want to see your pictures right off the bat and be able to process them later.

I have a couple of 1g flash cards but I think I will need an upgrade. I am planning on taking a laptop with me so I can dump the pictures each night I am at the world.

[DVC Jen]

I took two 2 gigs, one 1 gig and a 516? does that sound right (something like that). Every night DH dumped all the photos from the day onto his laptop and wrote them to DVD. I don't even want to think about how many cards I would have needed if we didn't dump the files each night.

[DarbyB]

I usually take my Rebel with a 2 gig and my Olympus with a 1 gig. But I download each night on my lap top just for safety!

I have been watching the ads and would like to upgrade to a 4 or 8 gig. They are getting less expensive...

My important lesson learned is to bring extra lenses... 2 years ago getting off the monorail at MK a man bumped me and my camera slid off my shoulder and hit the concrete lense first and I spent the rest of the trip shooting with my 75/300 lense. Needless to say I had a lot of fabulous closeups!!

[We-Luv-Disney]

I currently have 16GB worth of CF cards for my 40D. I will take all of them with me to WDW. I shot RAW only so I figure Ill get about 1500 images on those cards. My laptop went bye bye last year so I have to keep my images on the cards till we get home. I might pick up a few 2GB cards before we go, you can never have too much memory!

[Khokhonutt]

I carry 2 4GB CF cards at this point. I've considered getting more, but am now considering another option. I shoot exclusively in RAW now, there's just so much I can do with lightroom to recover RAW files.

I was discussing my current config with a buddy of mine. -- My laptop is an older machine, but not so old that I can justify a new one yet. Lightroom (my only RAW viewer at this point) runs fine on my desktop machine, but is pretty slow on my laptop. -- I was looking for a faster RAW viewer and he suggested I look at the digital camera backup solutions by www.wolverinedata.com.

They have some pretty cool options, from compact, relatively inexpensive units to more expenive units that are similar to the high end Zune/Ipod video options. The unique things about their products are:

- They come with slots for most memory cards. So while your on a trip, or even in the parks, you can drop your card in the machine, transfer files, format the card and keep going.

- They read and display (for the units with view screens) raw images.

My wife hates how my mind works on these things, but I figure if you consider the prices on decent, fast cards, the price on the smaller display versions aren't all that out of whack. Considering the fact that it prolongs the time before I need a new laptop, that helps as well.

Just some additional food for thought.

Jeff

[MICKEY88]

My important lesson learned is to bring extra lenses... 2 years ago getting off the monorail at MK a man bumped me and my camera slid off my shoulder and hit the concrete lense first and I spent the rest of the trip shooting with my 75/300 lense. Needless to say I had a lot of fabulous closeups!!

a more important lesson would be to always have the strap around your neck, rather than just on a shoulder, that way it can't slide off..

[MICKEY88]

http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/CategoryProductList.jsp?cat=Browse+By+Brand:Transc end:Transcend+Compact+Flash:Transcend+133X-300X+UDMA+Compact+Flash+Cards

[Gdad]

+1 for keeping to 2GB cards. I have a dozen or so but avoid the larger cards.

[orchjoe]

I just realized that I said compaq instead of compact.... :eek:

I guess I need to enroll in a remedial spelling course. Oh well… I will blame it on being up late night and surfing the DIS.

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Which do you recommend for on camera flash -- for those times when I don't want to lug around my sb800. (Which I have yet to learn how to use. I am such a sad sack...but I have lots of new toys, don't I?...) :rotfl: I'm going on a trip in a few weeks and hate the on camera flash so I want something to help me take better shots without lugging around the sb800.

I was looking at Gary Fongs' http://www.amazon.com/Gary-Fong-Puffer-Pop-up-Diffuser/dp/B000VHVE9S/ref=sr_1_26/103-2514235-7529456?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386566&sr=8-26

and this one:


Then there's this one: http://www.amazon.com/LumiQuest-Instant-Camera-Screen-Diffuser/dp/B000B5H2BE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2514235-7529456?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386994&sr=8-1

and this one: http://www.amazon.com/SunPak-DFU-01-Flash-Diffuser-Kit/dp/B000FFBACW/ref=pd_bbs_sr_9/103-2514235-7529456?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386685&sr=8-9

I saw Gary Fong's on Nikonians store, so I'm guessing that one may work better for Nikon built in flash?

Thanks in advance!

[We-Luv-Disney]

Hmmmmm...these links are not working:confused3

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Hmmmmm...these links are not working:confused3

Sorry, I'll repost.

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Thanks...

[MICKEY88]

the on camera flash is so limited distance wise, if you diffuse it will it be enough,


I guess I'm old school, the inconvenience of lugging the full size flash is so worth it for the improved quality of pictures

[boBQuincy]

Fong provides greatly exaggerated "with" & "without" images for the "Puffer" but doesn't mention how much the range is reduced.

I have two LumiQuest diffusers for a Canon 220EX and at ISO 400 the useable range is down to about 15 feet. The built-in flash is much less powerful than even the 220EX, so expect a very limited range.

The inexpensive diffusers do improve the image, just not nearly as much as the advertising hype claims.

[SharonLowe]

Which do you recommend for on camera flash -- for those times when I don't want to lug around my sb800. (Which I have yet to learn how to use. I am such a sad sack...but I have lots of new toys, don't I?...) :rotfl: I'm going on a trip in a few weeks and hate the on camera flash so I want something to help me take better shots without lugging around the sb800.

I was looking at Gary Fongs' http://www.amazon.com/Gary-Fong-Puffer-Pop-up-Diffuser/dp/B000VHVE9S/ref=sr_1_26/103-2514235-7529456?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386566&sr=8-26

and this one:


Then there's this one: http://www.amazon.com/LumiQuest-Instant-Camera-Screen-Diffuser/dp/B000B5H2BE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2514235-7529456?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386994&sr=8-1

and this one: http://www.amazon.com/SunPak-DFU-01-Flash-Diffuser-Kit/dp/B000FFBACW/ref=pd_bbs_sr_9/103-2514235-7529456?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386685&sr=8-9

I saw Gary Fong's on Nikonians store, so I'm guessing that one may work better for Nikon built in flash?

Thanks in advance!

Just take some tissue and tape it on the flash. Cheap and works better!

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Just take some tissue and tape it on the flash. Cheap and works better!

SharonLowe, will any kind of tissue work?

Thanks and thanks to all who responded!:)

[SharonLowe]

SharonLowe, will any kind of tissue work?

Thanks and thanks to all who responded!:)

Yep - toilet or nose. Try at home first to see if double layer or single layer better.

[boBQuincy]

Yep - toilet or nose. Try at home first to see if double layer or single layer better.

One point that was not addressed, make sure the tissue is unused! ;)

More seriously, check to see if the flash still has enough range with the tissue in front of it.

[DisneySuiteFreak]

One point that was not addressed, make sure the tissue is unused! ;)

More seriously, check to see if the flash still has enough range with the tissue in front of it.

Ha-ha!:lmao: I'll make sure to check the range and the tissue :rotfl: and thanks for the response.:)

[MarkBarbieri]

What's the purpose of the tissue? Is it to get broader coverage or to soften the light?

My flash, a Canon 580EX, comes with a built in diffuser that you can put over the flash when you want broader coverage. It doesn't really soften the light. I think you would have to have something larger than the flash head for that.

Here is my reasonining. The coverage area is determined by the angle at which light leaves the flash. If you focus it by zooming the flash, you'll get a smaller coverage area, but you'll get more light in that area. If you diffuse (scatter) the light coming out of the flash, it will go off in all directions. That means that it will light a larger area but with the same amount of light as it had before. Because of that, the light will be less bright in any one place. There will also be some light lost to the diffuser.

As for softening the light, my understanding is that the softness of the light depends on a combination of the size and distance of the light source from the subject. The bigger or closer the light source, the softer the light. Conversely, the smaller or farther the light source, the harder the light. Putting tissue directly on the flash will not appreciably change either the size or distance of the light source, so it shouldn't appreciably change it's softness. If you made a shield that was significantly larger than the flash head, that would soften the light.

I suppose that if you were in a small enough room, you could argue that the diffuser softens the light by sending a lot of it towards the walls and ceilings and that the bounces from those surfaces act to soften the light. If that's your plan, you'd probably be better off just bouncing the light off the ceiling.

[jamescousteau]

Hi boBQUINCY,

You mentioned that you have 2 Lumiquest diffusers that fit your Canon 220EX Speedlite -- which ones are they if you don't mind me asking? I have a Canon G7 that I use a 220EX with & am desperately seeking a solution for diffusion. Thanks!

[MICKEY88]

What's the purpose of the tissue? Is it to get broader coverage or to soften the light?

My flash, a Canon 580EX, comes with a built in diffuser that you can put over the flash when you want broader coverage. It doesn't really soften the light. I think you would have to have something larger than the flash head for that.

Here is my reasonining. The coverage area is determined by the angle at which light leaves the flash. If you focus it by zooming the flash, you'll get a smaller coverage area, but you'll get more light in that area. If you diffuse (scatter) the light coming out of the flash, it will go off in all directions. That means that it will light a larger area but with the same amount of light as it had before. Because of that, the light will be less bright in any one place. There will also be some light lost to the diffuser.

As for softening the light, my understanding is that the softness of the light depends on a combination of the size and distance of the light source from the subject. The bigger or closer the light source, the softer the light. Conversely, the smaller or farther the light source, the harder the light. Putting tissue directly on the flash will not appreciably change either the size or distance of the light source, so it shouldn't appreciably change it's softness. If you made a shield that was significantly larger than the flash head, that would soften the light.

I suppose that if you were in a small enough room, you could argue that the diffuser softens the light by sending a lot of it towards the walls and ceilings and that the bounces from those surfaces act to soften the light. If that's your plan, you'd probably be better off just bouncing the light off the ceiling.

I think the OP was talking about the built in flash, which makes it hard t bounce off of the ceiling..

I also don't follow the logic that the light source being farther away, makes the light harder,rather than softer... one way of softening studio lighting and reducing shadows is to move the lights farther from your subject..

[boBQuincy]

Hi boBQUINCY,

You mentioned that you have 2 Lumiquest diffusers that fit your Canon 220EX Speedlite -- which ones are they if you don't mind me asking? I have a Canon G7 that I use a 220EX with & am desperately seeking a solution for diffusion. Thanks!

I have the "Mini Softbox - for Shoe-Mount Flashes" (LUSBM at B&H) and the "Ultra Bounce - Wide Angle Flash Diffusion" (LUUB). Since no one makes a dedicated diffuser for the 220EX they attach with Velcro but it works ok.

For MICKEY88, the farther a light source is from the subject, the straighter the light rays hit the subject, making the light harder (small, well defined shadow). When the light is close some or many of the light rays can hit the subject at an angle, softening the light (larger, softer shadow).

[jamescousteau]

Sweet! Thanks so much!

[MarkBarbieri]

I also don't follow the logic that the light source being farther away, makes the light harder,rather than softer... one way of softening studio lighting and reducing shadows is to move the lights farther from your subject..

I think you are remembering the rule backwards. Bigger lights make softer shadows. That's why we use softboxes. From the perspective of the subject, a light that is farther away looks smaller and a light that is closer looks bigger. That's why the sun, despite being millions of times bigger than a softbox, creates hard shadows.

[AndrewWG]

All,

Well I finally decided on an external flash and bought the Canon Speedlite 430EX. This seemed like a great choice for the 30D and for my wallet. I used it last night for the first time at my friends wedding. I got nothing much more than mixed results with the flash. Here are the symptoms. I have noticed that if the camera is set on AUTO, the photos aren't so bad. As soon as I go into AV (the mode I use the most) the photos were blurry, etc due to the slower shutter speeds that were being used. However, I noticed that the photos I took in AUTO did not produce a RAW file even though the camera was set on RAW+JPG. I only got the JPG file. I could have really used the RAW files as they were usually somewhat underexposed. So now I am really confused. :confused3 Please keep in mind that the drinks were free and I couldn't have figured out how to fix these problems on the fly if I wanted to! :drinking1

How does someone use the flash, in a manual mode such as Av and get the shutter speed to be fast enough to not produce blur in a darkly lit room such as a wedding reception? Am I looking too much into this and thinking that the flash will solve all the lighting problems? I know that on my old film camera (which I only used on AUTO) when I put on the flash, it would change the settings of the camera to compensate for the fact that there was a flash attached. Should I have bumped up my ISO to compensate? I feel like I really really let down the groom by getting these junk shots of his wedding as I was the best man. Thankfully, I was NOT the photographer and I'm sure his shots came out just fine. I just wish I could see his EXIF info as he shot with a 20D. Maybe I will give him a call and see if he will tell me what his settings were like. I have another wedding next weekend and would really like to get this right before then.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[jann1033]

no suggestions but just want to see what the answer is...trying to decide if i should just get a cheap flash( ie that vivatar or sunpack "cheap but good for the prices") but will have to use it manual or wait till dec when i can get the one i really want.

[AndrewWG]

I thought about the cheaper flashes but the one thing I didn't like was their recycle time. It was quite slow. I found last night that I liked the faster recycle time of the 430EX alot. I could have actually used it a bit faster even. I don't think that in most cases I would need this function, but it is nice to have.

Now that my head is starting to get out of the fog that I put it in last night, maybe I can explain my question a bit better. :idea:

What I was wondering is if the camera is metering off of available light and giving me a 1/30 sec f5.6 shot, what will the effect of the flash be? Will this overexpose shots since the camera isn't taking into effect the extra light from the flash? I thought that the camera would take this into effect and bump the shutter speed up a bit, but I don't think that is the case at all.

Maybe I'm still in a fog...

[boBQuincy]

All,

Well I finally decided on an external flash and bought the Canon Speedlite 430EX. This seemed like a great choice for the 30D and for my wallet. I used it last night for the first time at my friends wedding. I got nothing much more than mixed results with the flash. Here are the symptoms. I have noticed that if the camera is set on AUTO, the photos aren't so bad. As soon as I go into AV (the mode I use the most) the photos were blurry, etc due to the slower shutter speeds that were being used. However, I noticed that the photos I took in AUTO did not produce a RAW file even though the camera was set on RAW+JPG. I only got the JPG file.

AFAIK "AUTO" will only give JPGs. It also limits ISO to 400 maximum, and locks out a lot of other features as well. "P" is usually a better choice, although "AUTO" is good when we're drinking! ;) Both P and AUTO set the shutter and aperture for the flash, eliminating blur but also mostly eliminating ambient light.

How does someone use the flash, in a manual mode such as Av and get the shutter speed to be fast enough to not produce blur in a darkly lit room such as a wedding reception?

Short answer, we can't. In Av the camera will set a shutter speed appropriate for the aperture, usually pretty slow. Wide open we may get a decent shutter speed but probably not even then with the lighting at most wedding receptions. I recently photographed a local play using Av and had the ISO at 800 and even 1600 to get a fast enough shutter speed.

Am I looking too much into this and thinking that the flash will solve all the lighting problems?

It won't solve all of them but it can certainly help! Bounce flash with a diffuser that throws some of the light forward may look better. Getting the flash off the camera also helps. The "Strobist" web site has a lot of good ideas!


boB

[MarkBarbieri]

All,

Well I finally decided on an external flash and bought the Canon Speedlite 430EX. This seemed like a great choice for the 30D and for my wallet. I used it last night for the first time at my friends wedding. I got nothing much more than mixed results with the flash. Here are the symptoms. I have noticed that if the camera is set on AUTO, the photos aren't so bad. As soon as I go into AV (the mode I use the most) the photos were blurry, etc due to the slower shutter speeds that were being used. However, I noticed that the photos I took in AUTO did not produce a RAW file even though the camera was set on RAW+JPG. I only got the JPG file. I could have really used the RAW files as they were usually somewhat underexposed. So now I am really confused. :confused3 Please keep in mind that the drinks were free and I couldn't have figured out how to fix these problems on the fly if I wanted to! :drinking1

How does someone use the flash, in a manual mode such as Av and get the shutter speed to be fast enough to not produce blur in a darkly lit room such as a wedding reception? Am I looking too much into this and thinking that the flash will solve all the lighting problems? I know that on my old film camera (which I only used on AUTO) when I put on the flash, it would change the settings of the camera to compensate for the fact that there was a flash attached. Should I have bumped up my ISO to compensate? I feel like I really really let down the groom by getting these junk shots of his wedding as I was the best man. Thankfully, I was NOT the photographer and I'm sure his shots came out just fine. I just wish I could see his EXIF info as he shot with a 20D. Maybe I will give him a call and see if he will tell me what his settings were like. I have another wedding next weekend and would really like to get this right before then.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Flash is a little tricky. Be patient.

First, AV mode is different from other flash modes. With AV mode, the camera exposes the scene as normal and uses the flash to suplement. You generally only use this mode if there is some part of the scene that you want exposed using ambient light while another part of the scene needs light from the flash to brighten it. A good example might be a night shot of someone in front of something illuminated. In that case, you put your camera on a tripod and ask your subject to stay very still, even after the flash.

If you use P (program), Tv (shutter priority), or M (manual), your camera will use the flash to help properly expose the scene. P is the easiest, because the camera handles everything for you.

M works much better than you might think. When I'm indoors, I often check to see how the camera wants to meter a scene without flash. If everything is OK but the shutter speed is a little too low, I'll switch to manual and bump the shutter speed up to something I think is reasonable. For example, if the camera is telling me that it wants me to shoot 1/15s at f/4.0, I might boost that to 1/60s at f/4.0 in manual and turn on the flash. The flash will automatically adjust it's output to give me a decent exposure. It will come at the cost of having distant items behind my subject come out dim, but if I don't deviate too far from a reasonable ambient light exposure, the effect isn't too bad. If you can bounce the flash off the ceiling, you can get away with more flash illumination.

As was mentioned already Full "Auto" mode doesn't do RAW. It essentially assumes that you know nothing and treats your camera like a simple point and shoot. It will happily override all sorts of functions. If you want to control everything except your exposure settings, use P instead of Auto.

[Lizziejane]

As Mark has already said, the problem is aperture mode, unless you use a tripod. Not that I'm an expert by any means - I struggle with flash too! Here's a great link that explains all about the EOS system and Canon external flash. it's very lengthy but definitely worth a read if you've invested the extra money.

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html

[handicap18]

Most times when I use my flash I like Aperture Priority at f/5.6 and ISO 400. The camera usually picks 1/60th and things seem to work out pretty well. I will bounce the flash with the diffuser as needed, sometimes I need it bounced and other times I don't (both with the diffuser on).

I'll go back later and look at the EXIF on some of my flash shots and see what it gives me. But I'm leaning towards what I typed above.

I don't know Canon's flash guns, but with my Nikon there are basically 3 modes. Full Manual (which I don't use), FULL TTL (which I almost always use) and Fill TTL (don't use very often). If you use the Fill then the flash obviously wont be as bright. Just something to check.

[AndrewWG]

Thanks everyone for all the advice here! It figures I used the one mode that the flash doesn't work well with! :lmao: I know that one problem I have is going to a setting that the camera says is over or under exposed. I have to get over that one. I usually just set it so that the camera is happy with the exposure and fire away. I will try Tv or M next Saturday night at wedding #2 this month. I may try to talk a bit with the photographer that night and see what he/she says about how they do it so well.

Lizzie, that article is great although it is a bit over my head at this point. :laughing: I will have to print it and re-read it to see if I can understand it better. Seems there is alot more to flash photography than I had given it credit for!

[boBQuincy]

One other trick that might work (still in Av) if there is "almost" enough ambient light is to set the basic exposure for two stops under, and set the flash exposure for two stops over.
This would make for a faster shutter speed, as fast as possible for the ambient light level.

[Lizziejane]

Andy - believe me, most of that article is over my head too - however, section two really gets to the heart of what we *need* to know about flash in the different modes. And even I can understand it! the problem is, when I'm off somewhere shooting, I forget it all. So I've printed it off and stuck it in the camera bag. Let us know if the wedding photographer gives you any great tips :thumbsup2

[jann1033]

holy crow, just reading this thread is giving me fear of flash..maybe i 'm not ready.....:lmao:

[seashoreCM]

Is the external flash unit actually triggered by the camera's built in flash?

If so, see if you can find a "normal" flash setting among your manual modes (seeing that Auto doesn't give you the RAW format file). This should result in a reasonably fast shutter that also synchronizes with the flash.

Trigger by flash sometimes gets a premature trigger when others are taking flash pictures. Then when you take your picture, the flash unit hasn't recharged enough and your picture is too dark.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

[DVC Jen]

This is a great thread. I have been fighting with my flash as well. Just can't seem to get the hang of it. Jane I bookmarked the link you gave and will read it when I don't have any distractions.

Any advice anyone has - or tips towards using flash is super appreciated.

[gruZ]

If you want to get into some more detail, I suggest this link (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=171657). It's a Canon forum, but the principles apply no matter what brand you prefer. There is another link buried right at the top of the one I suggested, which also goes into more detail.

As long as I'm suggesting links, if you are getting into flash, take a look over at Strobist (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html). This is a link to the Lighting 101 series. Again, this is a bit more advanced (as his entire premise is using the flash OFF the camera), but it does give a ton of very good information.

Flash is tricky at first. Hang with it, and you will begin to wonder how you ever got along without it!

[MICKEY88]

One other trick that might work (still in Av) if there is "almost" enough ambient light is to set the basic exposure for two stops under, and set the flash exposure for two stops over.
This would make for a faster shutter speed, as fast as possible for the ambient light level.

I may be wrong here, but I think that method would result in an underexposed background with a harshly lit subject if taking people pics, it's best to balance the lighting...

plus no matter how you try to trick the camera/flash, most flashes have a max sync of 60 or 125, unless you get a higher end flash that has high speed sync..

[MICKEY88]

All,

Please keep in mind that the drinks were free and I couldn't have figured out how to fix these problems on the fly if I wanted to! :drinking1

How does someone use the flash, in a manual mode such as Av and get the shutter speed to be fast enough to not produce blur in a darkly lit room such as a wedding reception? Am I looking too much into this and thinking that the flash will solve all the lighting problems? I know that on my old film camera (which I only used on AUTO) when I put on the flash, it would change the settings of the camera to compensate for the fact that there was a flash attached. Should I have bumped up my ISO to compensate? I feel like I really really let down the groom by getting these junk shots of his wedding as I was the best man. Thankfully, I was NOT the photographer and I'm sure his shots came out just fine. I just wish I could see his EXIF info as he shot with a 20D. Maybe I will give him a call and see if he will tell me what his settings were like. I have another wedding next weekend and would really like to get this right before then.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

first advice, free or not, alcohol and good photography do not mix.seriously...

a good place to start is....

gary fong difffuser

iso 400-800

manual or aperture priority

f 1.4-f 4...fastest possible....

1/30 to 1/60 shutter....




the flash should freeze any motion, if you are getting blur, the problem lies elsewhare, camera shake/etc.

[AndrewWG]

first advice, free or not, alcohol and good photography do not mix.seriously...

a good place to start is....

gary fong difffuser

iso 400-800

manual or aperture priority

f 1.4-f 4...fastest possible....

1/30 to 1/60 shutter....


the flash should freeze any motion, if you are getting blur, the problem lies elsewhare, camera shake/etc.

Point taken! :lmao: That is why I used the fully auto mode in the first place. I knew that my creative juices had taken a backseat to the Bud Light demons.

I took a look at the Gary Fong stuff and had no idea which one to buy so I gave up on that. Any suggestions on this?

[MICKEY88]

Point taken! :lmao: That is why I used the fully auto mode in the first place. I knew that my creative juices had taken a backseat to the Bud Light demons.

I took a look at the Gary Fong stuff and had no idea which one to buy so I gave up on that. Any suggestions on this?


I have 2 of the clear lightspheres, a lot of my shooting is photojournalism type so I wanted the extra range, the whaletail came out after my purchases,, I'm happy with the lightsphere so at this point I don't feel the need to try the whaletail..

[MarkBarbieri]

Iplus no matter how you try to trick the camera/flash, most flashes have a max sync of 60 or 125, unless you get a higher end flash that has high speed sync..

Here's why. We tend to think of the shutter as being open or closed. If we take a shot with a shutter speed of 1/125s, the shutter is closed, it opens for 1/125 seconds, and then it is closed again. That's not exactly how it works.

The shutter consists of two "curtains". When the first curtain pulls away, incoming light hits your sensor. When the seocnd curtain comes down, the sensor is blocked again. So far, that sounds pretty normal.

The trick is when you take picture with high shutter speeds. If you take a shot at 1/500s, your camera's shutter just isn't fast enough. The exposure starts off normally enough, with the first curtain racing across to let light hit the sensor. However, before it gets to the other side of the sensor, the second curtain starts coming along behind it blocking the sensor. At no point in time is the entire sensor exposed. Instead, there is a little moving gap between the two curtains that sweeps across the sensor. The net effect is that no part of the sensor is open for more than 1/500 of a second, but the entire process takes much longer (probably about 1/200 of a second).

When you set your shutter speed faster still, say 1/4000s, the shutters don't move any faster. The gap between then just gets smaller. The time between when the first curtain and the second curtain passes is now only 1/4000s, but it still takes 1/200s for that gap to make its way across the sensor.

There are two important lessons to take away from that. First, using really fast shutter speeds to freeze motion doesn't really work quite the way might think it does. That's because while the exposure might be for 1/4000s and no one part of the picture was exposed for any longer, it still took 1/200 for the entire picture to be exposed.

Second, the normal flash sync speed of your camera is determined by the fastest shutter speed at which the entire sensor is exposed. For most cameras, that seems to be somewhere around 1/125 to 1/500, depending on the camera model. The flash duration is usually extremely fast (from about 1/1000s for a Canon 580EX at full power to about 1/35,000s for the same flash at 1/128 power). It just has to happen during the time between when the first curtain has revealed the sensor and before the second curtain has started to cover it.

Now your probably thinking that I'm an idiot because you've seen flashes capable of operating at much higher speed sync modes. That's true (well, hopefully not the idiot part, just the part about flashes working at higher speed modes). The trick is that they work differently in high speed sync mode. In that mode, the flash starts just before the first curtain starts to reveal the sensor and keeps shining until just after the second curtain closes the last bit of the sensor. So while the two curtains are racing across your sensor for your 1/4000s shot, which I've told you takes about 1/200s to take, the flash is shining for the whole 1/200s.

There are a couple of good points to take away from that as well. First, if you were using a high shutter speed to freeze motion, you'd have done better with the 1/200s shutter speed and 1/10,000s (or whatever it worked out to be) flash duration than you would with a 1/4,000s shutter speed and a 1/200s total exposure duration. That assumes, of course, that your flash was your primary source of light.

Second, running your flash in high speed sync mode all the time comes at a price. Because the flash duration is longer for each shot, you munch through batteries faster and your recharge times are longer. I've never actually tested that, but it seems like it must be the case.

To be honest, all of this is based on observation, various ruminations, conversations with friends that may or may not know what they are talking about, and a few odd references. If you think I'm wrong, don't be cowed by any sense that I must know sometime. Feel free to correct me or disagree.

[MICKEY88]

Here's why. We tend to think of the shutter as being open or closed. If we take a shot with a shutter speed of 1/125s, the shutter is closed, it opens for 1/125 seconds, and then it is closed again. That's not exactly how it works.

The shutter consists of two "curtains". When the first curtain pulls away, incoming light hits your sensor. When the seocnd curtain comes down, the sensor is blocked again. So far, that sounds pretty normal.

The trick is when you take picture with high shutter speeds. If you take a shot at 1/500s, your camera's shutter just isn't fast enough. The exposure starts off normally enough, with the first curtain racing across to let light hit the sensor. However, before it gets to the other side of the sensor, the second curtain starts coming along behind it blocking the sensor. At no point in time is the entire sensor exposed. Instead, there is a little moving gap between the two curtains that sweeps across the sensor. The net effect is that no part of the sensor is open for more than 1/500 of a second, but the entire process takes much longer (probably about 1/200 of a second).

When you set your shutter speed faster still, say 1/4000s, the shutters don't move any faster. The gap between then just gets smaller. The time between when the first curtain and the second curtain passes is now only 1/4000s, but it still takes 1/200s for that gap to make its way across the sensor.

There are two important lessons to take away from that. First, using really fast shutter speeds to freeze motion doesn't really work quite the way might think it does. That's because while the exposure might be for 1/4000s and no one part of the picture was exposed for any longer, it still took 1/200 for the entire picture to be exposed.

Second, the normal flash sync speed of your camera is determined by the fastest shutter speed at which the entire sensor is exposed. For most cameras, that seems to be somewhere around 1/125 to 1/500, depending on the camera model. The flash duration is usually extremely fast (from about 1/1000s for a Canon 580EX at full power to about 1/35,000s for the same flash at 1/128 power). It just has to happen during the time between when the first curtain has revealed the sensor and before the second curtain has started to cover it.

Now your probably thinking that I'm an idiot because you've seen flashes capable of operating at much higher speed sync modes. That's true (well, hopefully not the idiot part, just the part about flashes working at higher speed modes). The trick is that they work differently in high speed sync mode. In that mode, the flash starts just before the first curtain starts to reveal the sensor and keeps shining until just after the second curtain closes the last bit of the sensor. So while the two curtains are racing across your sensor for your 1/4000s shot, which I've told you takes about 1/200s to take, the flash is shining for the whole 1/200s.

There are a couple of good points to take away from that as well. First, if you were using a high shutter speed to freeze motion, you'd have done better with the 1/200s shutter speed and 1/10,000s (or whatever it worked out to be) flash duration than you would with a 1/4,000s shutter speed and a 1/200s total exposure duration. That assumes, of course, that your flash was your primary source of light.

Second, running your flash in high speed sync mode all the time comes at a price. Because the flash duration is longer for each shot, you munch through batteries faster and your recharge times are longer. I've never actually tested that, but it seems like it must be the case.

To be honest, all of this is based on observation, various ruminations, conversations with friends that may or may not know what they are talking about, and a few odd references. If you think I'm wrong, don't be cowed by any sense that I must know sometime. Feel free to correct me or disagree.

won't even venture to say if you are wrong or right, I personally don't need to know the details of why or how it works, just that it works... to me too much technical info just complicates the whole issue for the average person.

the bottom line is, if you shoot at a speed higher than your max sync speed you end up with a shadow across your pic, rendering it basically worthless..

the one time I do use high speed sync is for outdoor shooting in the shade on a bright day, or for fill on a face if the sun is high and causing shadows on the eye sockets and under the nose,

for good balance of ambient light and flash, you generally want to shoot at 1/6o or 1/125

[Lizziejane]

I'll second what Jen said ... great thread, and I'm sure one a lot of people can benefit from.

I'm taking a course right now and we just spent an evening on flash. A couple of things I learned:

with the canon speedlights, if you're in AV mode, it assumes you want to preserve the ambient light, and the camera will select the appropriate shutter speed, regardless of how slow that may be. The flash output adjusts accordingly. So, if your shutter speed is half a second, you'll need to drag out the tripod, even with the flash!

If you're shooting in manual and your ambient light is your main source of light, and the flash is secondary, expose one stop under what your meter tells you. The flash will brighten up the background without over-exposing it. We played around with this a lot in class, and I found by stopping down one full stop on exposure and also stopping down 1/3 on the flash, I got a beautiful, natural looking shot with no obvious flash glare. Obviously, it's not a given, but the main point was, under-expose first, then adjust your flash if need be. The emphasis was really on experiment to death!

Hmmm...so much to learn about flash, my head is spinning!

[seashoreCM]

Even the flashbulb and film camera experts needed to be aware of sync. speed. Flashbulbs have a light output that takes a period of time, typically 1/60'th second. If the shutter speed was too fast, even for open/close shutters (between the lens shutters or behind the lens shutters, typically found on point and shoots) some of the light is wasted as it starts or ends when the shutter is closed. For curtain shutters (focal plane shutters, typical on SLR's), flashbulbs with a long flash, with relatively constant intensity lasting for the entire time the slit crosses the film, are used.

[AndrewWG]

Here's why. We tend to think of the shutter as being open or closed. If we take a shot with a shutter speed of 1/125s, the shutter is closed, it opens for 1/125 seconds, and then it is closed again. That's not exactly how it works.

The shutter consists of two "curtains". When the first curtain pulls away, incoming light hits your sensor. When the seocnd curtain comes down, the sensor is blocked again. So far, that sounds pretty normal.

The trick is when you take picture with high shutter speeds. If you take a shot at 1/500s, your camera's shutter just isn't fast enough. The exposure starts off normally enough, with the first curtain racing across to let light hit the sensor. However, before it gets to the other side of the sensor, the second curtain starts coming along behind it blocking the sensor. At no point in time is the entire sensor exposed. Instead, there is a little moving gap between the two curtains that sweeps across the sensor. The net effect is that no part of the sensor is open for more than 1/500 of a second, but the entire process takes much longer (probably about 1/200 of a second).

When you set your shutter speed faster still, say 1/4000s, the shutters don't move any faster. The gap between then just gets smaller. The time between when the first curtain and the second curtain passes is now only 1/4000s, but it still takes 1/200s for that gap to make its way across the sensor.

There are two important lessons to take away from that. First, using really fast shutter speeds to freeze motion doesn't really work quite the way might think it does. That's because while the exposure might be for 1/4000s and no one part of the picture was exposed for any longer, it still took 1/200 for the entire picture to be exposed.

Second, the normal flash sync speed of your camera is determined by the fastest shutter speed at which the entire sensor is exposed. For most cameras, that seems to be somewhere around 1/125 to 1/500, depending on the camera model. The flash duration is usually extremely fast (from about 1/1000s for a Canon 580EX at full power to about 1/35,000s for the same flash at 1/128 power). It just has to happen during the time between when the first curtain has revealed the sensor and before the second curtain has started to cover it.

Now your probably thinking that I'm an idiot because you've seen flashes capable of operating at much higher speed sync modes. That's true (well, hopefully not the idiot part, just the part about flashes working at higher speed modes). The trick is that they work differently in high speed sync mode. In that mode, the flash starts just before the first curtain starts to reveal the sensor and keeps shining until just after the second curtain closes the last bit of the sensor. So while the two curtains are racing across your sensor for your 1/4000s shot, which I've told you takes about 1/200s to take, the flash is shining for the whole 1/200s.

There are a couple of good points to take away from that as well. First, if you were using a high shutter speed to freeze motion, you'd have done better with the 1/200s shutter speed and 1/10,000s (or whatever it worked out to be) flash duration than you would with a 1/4,000s shutter speed and a 1/200s total exposure duration. That assumes, of course, that your flash was your primary source of light.

Second, running your flash in high speed sync mode all the time comes at a price. Because the flash duration is longer for each shot, you munch through batteries faster and your recharge times are longer. I've never actually tested that, but it seems like it must be the case.

To be honest, all of this is based on observation, various ruminations, conversations with friends that may or may not know what they are talking about, and a few odd references. If you think I'm wrong, don't be cowed by any sense that I must know sometime. Feel free to correct me or disagree.

:scared1: :faint:

Wow, I have alot to learn...

[AndrewWG]

I'll second what Jen said ... great thread, and I'm sure one a lot of people can benefit from.

I'm taking a course right now and we just spent an evening on flash. A couple of things I learned:

with the canon speedlights, if you're in AV mode, it assumes you want to preserve the ambient light, and the camera will select the appropriate shutter speed, regardless of how slow that may be. The flash output adjusts accordingly. So, if your shutter speed is half a second, you'll need to drag out the tripod, even with the flash!

If you're shooting in manual and your ambient light is your main source of light, and the flash is secondary, expose one stop under what your meter tells you. The flash will brighten up the background without over-exposing it. We played around with this a lot in class, and I found by stopping down one full stop on exposure and also stopping down 1/3 on the flash, I got a beautiful, natural looking shot with no obvious flash glare. Obviously, it's not a given, but the main point was, under-expose first, then adjust your flash if need be. The emphasis was really on experiment to death!

Hmmm...so much to learn about flash, my head is spinning!

Lizzie,

Sure seems like Av mode was NOT the way for me to go the other night. I think I will try using Tv or even M this Saturday night. I will also speak with the photographer if they have time and see what they say. I'm taking the New York Institute of Photography courses now and hopefully they get into flash alot so I can learn more about this.

[AndrewWG]

Even the flashbulb and film camera experts needed to be aware of sync. speed. Flashbulbs have a light output that takes a period of time, typically 1/60'th second. If the shutter speed was too fast, even for open/close shutters (between the lens shutters or behind the lens shutters, typically found on point and shoots) some of the light is wasted as it starts or ends when the shutter is closed. For curtain shutters (focal plane shutters, typical on SLR's), flashbulbs with a long flash, with relatively constant intensity lasting for the entire time the slit crosses the film, are used.

Hmmm... how do I get these things to work on the 30D anyways? :confused3
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w148/AndyG1970/FlashCubes.jpg


Just kidding, and YES I do still have these in my drawer here at home... :rolleyes1

[boBQuincy]

Now your probably thinking that I'm an idiot because you've seen flashes capable of operating at much higher speed sync modes. That's true (well, hopefully not the idiot part, just the part about flashes working at higher speed modes). The trick is that they work differently in high speed sync mode. In that mode, the flash starts just before the first curtain starts to reveal the sensor and keeps shining until just after the second curtain closes the last bit of the sensor. So while the two curtains are racing across your sensor for your 1/4000s shot, which I've told you takes about 1/200s to take, the flash is shining for the whole 1/200s.

Pretty close to correct (not the idiot part). ;) The flash may appear to be on continuously but actually it is repeatedly firing fast enough so it can cover the entire exposure without missing a part. Consider, if the shutter is set for 1/800 but it actually moves at 1/200 then it would be a slit 25% of the total shutter opening. In that case four flashes timed properly would illuminate the entire image as far as the sensor is concerned. That's some difficult timing but if we had many more than four flashes they would not even have to be timed properly. It's no problem (electronically anyway)firing the flash 10,000 or more times a second, that's 50 flashes per shutter actuation!
By adjusting the proportion of on/off time the flash still maintains control of the exposure.

Modern electronics controlled by computers, what a great combination!

[Lizziejane]

Hmmm... how do I get these things to work on the 30D anyways? :confused3
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w148/AndyG1970/FlashCubes.jpg


Just kidding, and YES I do still have these in my drawer here at home... :rolleyes1

now that's a trip down memory lane!! Remember when you (ok ... me) used to be really selective about which shot to take, so as not to waste them?!

[Lizziejane]

Lizzie,

Sure seems like Av mode was NOT the way for me to go the other night. I think I will try using Tv or even M this Saturday night. I will also speak with the photographer if they have time and see what they say. I'm taking the New York Institute of Photography courses now and hopefully they get into flash alot so I can learn more about this.

Just a quick note to add here. According to the article I linked earlier, TV mode will also first choose to expose the background correctly (same as AV). In other words, both AV and TV work as fill flash. If, in TV, you set the shutter speed too fast and your aperture is wide open, you'll see the aperture flash in your viewfinder, indicating your background is too dimly lit. It will allow you to take the picture, but your background will be under-exposed. If you want to expose the backgrund correctly, then you need to decrease the shutter speed to compensate.

P always assumes you want to light the foreground and will act accordingly. If the backgrou ends up black, so be it. And manual is...well... manual! :scared1:

Too bad I can't remember any of this stuff when I have the camera/flash in my hand, and there's a shot I just *have* to get!

[seashoreCM]

Pretty close to correct (not the idiot part). ;) Consider, if the shutter is set for 1/800 but it actually moves at 1/200 then it would be a slit 25% of the total shutter opening. In that case four flashes timed properly would illuminate the entire image as far as the sensor is concerned. That's some difficult timing .

Modern electronics controlled by computers, what a great combination!
(OT unless you have a Ph.D. in art emphasizing photography) Yes, difficult timing. The shutter is mechanical. I find it hard to believe that just several electronically controlled flashes would sync. with a moving shutter slit to exactly expose, say, the first 25%, the next 25%, etc. of the sensor without overlap or underexposed gaps. It would have to either be many (like several dozen) flashes, or a shutter curtain movement that had the entire sensor exposed for some time period when all of the flashes occurred.
Hmmm... how do I get these things (flashcubes) to work on the 30D anyways?
Just kidding, and YES I do still have these in my drawer here at home...
I wish digital cameras had come with "hot shoes" so I could use just about any flash gun including the one I still use with flash cubes and my film camera. A 2.8 lens and a high power cube and ISO 200 gets me something like 50 feet of flash range compared with the 9 or so feet on my Canon digital built in flash.

[MICKEY88]

(OT unless you have a Ph.D. in art emphasizing photography) Yes, difficult timing. The shutter is mechanical. I find it hard to believe that just several electronically controlled flashes would sync. with a moving shutter slit to exactly expose, say, the first 25%, the next 25%, etc. of the sensor without overlap or underexposed gaps. It would have to either be many (like several dozen) flashes, or a shutter curtain movement that had the entire sensor exposed for some time period when all of the flashes occurred.

I wish digital cameras had come with "hot shoes" so I could use just about any flash gun including the one I still use with flash cubes and my film camera. A 2.8 lens and a high power cube and ISO 200 gets me something like 50 feet of flash range compared with the 9 or so feet on my Canon digital built in flash.


if you're talking about a digital point and shoot, there are external flashes made to slave off of the built in flash, you get a small bracket that attaches via the tripod socket, then the flash goes on the bracket

[DVC Jen]

My head is spinning - not sure if it is the cold meds or all the flash talk. ;)

I have one quick question - why hasn't Bryan Peterson written a book about flash? I mean geesh - he explains everything else so well why not this?
:sad2:

[jann1033]

my flash is my next purchase( unless i come up with the 40d money first) and i hope this is lots easier than it sounds,..but i don't think so,,,,oh crud...i wish there was a cheap online course..Lizzie where are you taking yours?

[Lizziejane]

Jann, I'm taking a general photography course through the local photography school. It's an 8-week course and last week was all about flash. In February, I start a 6 week course that is exclusively all about lighting - the first two weeks cover ambient light; the next 2 are all about flash and the final two are about setting up home-based studio lighting, supposedly, according to the description, with minimum $ output - I really like the sound of that :thumbsup2

[DVC Jen]

Jann, I'm taking a general photography course through the local photography school. It's an 8-week course and last week was all about flash. In February, I start a 6 week course that is exclusively all about lighting - the first two weeks cover ambient light; the next 2 are all about flash and the final two are about setting up home-based studio lighting, supposedly, according to the description, with minimum $ output - I really like the sound of that :thumbsup2

Ya know Jane - we are all gonna expect you to come back and teach us everything you have learned in your classes. ;)

[Lizziejane]

My head is spinning - not sure if it is the cold meds or all the flash talk. ;)

I have one quick question - why hasn't Bryan Peterson written a book about flash? I mean geesh - he explains everything else so well why not this?
:sad2:

It would be great if he did, huh? He's the only one who can talk gobbly-gook so that I understand it!

I think part of the problem is that not all brands of flash act the same way. From what I gathered last week, Canon speedlights react differently in some of the modes than Nikon speedlights.

[jann1033]

Jen you seem to be doing fine from what i've seen:thumbsup2
I might look into one of the local colleges and see if they have anything online once i actually get a flash:lmao: since right now it would be "air flash":rotfl2: although i could probably master that one.

[AndrewWG]

Ok, so I went to the second wedding this month and had MUCH better success with the flash! :cool1: I think that the reason for this was the lower, all white ceilings that I was bouncing the flash off of. I really really concentrated on what I was doing at this wedding, but still, I screwed up a large portion of my shooting by trying to figure out how I could push a faster shutter speed from my camera. Well, after about an hour of giving up, I realized that my ISO was set at 100! I never even thought of ISO! Why, why, why can't I remember all the things that go into this hobby? :mad: Anyways, those photos were somewhat saved by the fact that I shot RAW and was able to PP them enough to make them look good. There is blur in some, of course, but the biggest problem was underexposure and it was somewhat easily correctable.

I spoke with the photographer on hand and she was shooting at ISO 1600 on the 5D. Her backup camera was a 20D. She said something that made little or no sense to me. She claimed that she could use a shutter speed of, like, 1/15 sec with the flash and it would light up the subject AND let the camera record some ambient light (rather than have that black background) and that the 1/15 second shutter (she claimed she could go down to 1/3!) would not cause the subject to blur, because the flash would light them so well. HUH? I can't imagine that the subject wouldn't blur. Does anyone have a better explaination of this? She was totally confident that it would be fine. I didn't try it, because it sounded stupid, but I can't wait to see her pics. She was so into talking to someone about photography, it was a great talk until she had to get back to work.

One thing I realized too (and I always knew) was that metering for a black tux and a white dress in the same shot is a nightmare! I had to PP almost all my shots to get a better exposure. I wish I could do it direct from the camera, but my knowledge on this is too limited right now.

Well, in the end, I ended up with photos that I would think are above average from someone not getting paid to do the event and that makes me pretty darned happy with the whole experience.

[handicap18]

Well, after about an hour of giving up, I realized that my ISO was set at 100! I never even thought of ISO! Why, why, why can't I remember all the things that go into this hobby? :mad:
.
I don't think anyone can. and I mean ANYONE. I think there's a pretty good explination of why on the new Canon 40D and Nikon D300 that they are including the ISO in the viewfinder whereas in the past none of the camera's had this feature.

I did it last weekend. Outside on a sunny day in midafternoon and I had my ISO set to 1600 from the previous time I used the camera indoors with no flash. DOH!!


I spoke with the photographer on hand and she was shooting at ISO 1600 on the 5D. Her backup camera was a 20D. She said something that made little or no sense to me. She claimed that she could use a shutter speed of, like, 1/15 sec with the flash and it would light up the subject AND let the camera record some ambient light (rather than have that black background) and that the 1/15 second shutter (she claimed she could go down to 1/3!) would not cause the subject to blur, because the flash would light them so well. HUH? I can't imagine that the subject wouldn't blur. Does anyone have a better explaination of this? She was totally confident that it would be fine. I didn't try it, because it sounded stupid, but I can't wait to see her pics. She was so into talking to someone about photography, it was a great talk until she had to get back to work.

One of the recent contests had a picture of a family infront of the Castle at MK. It was at night and the EXIF data showed the pic taken at around 1 second (I forget the exact setting). The castle was lit up beautifully and the flash (second curtain synch I believe) lit up the family perfectly with no blur, though people around them did have motion blur, but because the flash wasn't directed at them, they weren't lit to brightly.

So I can see why the photographer you talked to would do this. You do have to be careful with your composition. Just about anything beyond the main subject people will come out blury from movement

With the 5D, she's probably not worried about noise like we would as the 5D is full frame body with a bigger sensor, therefor a much better performer at high ISO's.

I remember doing a photo assignment in high school photo class. I was in the gym and some girls were shooting hoops. I took a shot of the net as the ball went though using 1/60th and a flash. The shot came out great with the ball perfectly still from being frozen for that split second by the flash.

Glad to read that your getting better results. This learning stuff can be a real pain. Keep up the good work.

[AndrewWG]

Kyle,

Yeah, I know everyone does it. I just wish I wasn't one of those everyones! :lmao: I think that some of my problems come as a result of being a point and shooter for so long. Actually, even when I used my film Rebel, it was always on AUTO, so I guess I've been a P&S'er forever.

I'll have to try that flash trick sometime. Right now, I'm not into tricks, just trying to learn. :surfweb:

At least one thing I learned from last weekend is that if you don't take FULL advantage of the open bar, your photos come out better! This allows you to get some crazy shots of the people after they have taken FULL advantage of the open bar! :dance3:

[MarkBarbieri]

The flash "trick" works because the flash itself is nearly instantaneous. That's what freezes the motion. It will work for anything that either doesn't move (like static stuff in the background) or for stuff that does move but is lit overwhelmingly by the flash.

As for remembering ISO and all the other stuff, I sympathize. I would really like a "reset" button on my camera that resets everything to a user-definable state. Then I can make adjustments from there. When I pick up my camera, I'd like it to always be set to ISO 400, Av mode with the aperture at f/5.6, mirror lock-up turned off, low-speed drive mode, continuous AF, all focus points active, RAW, no exposure bracketing, no exposure compensation, evaluative metering, and probably several other common settings that don't immediately leap to mind. The problem is that I'll change one or more of these to suit what I'm shooting and then forget about it. It's obvious when you've left mirror lock-up on or set the drive to two second delay, but it's easy to forget that you left spot metering on or that you dialed in some exposure compensation.

Even though I have ISO in my viewfinder (although it is inexplicably not visible while you are adjusting it), but I've still been known to forget about it and take a couple of quick shots in sunlight at ISO 1600 or one inside at ISO 50. With experience, you'll quickly notice that your shutter speeds aren't what you'd expect for the conditions and track down what is throwing them off. Still, there are other settings that can burn you and you won't notice all day. I once shot a few dozen shots in small JPG because I forgot that I'd turned that on for a dust detection shot.

[MICKEY88]

I spoke with the photographer on hand and she was shooting at ISO 1600 on the 5D. Her backup camera was a 20D. She said something that made little or no sense to me. She claimed that she could use a shutter speed of, like, 1/15 sec with the flash and it would light up the subject AND let the camera record some ambient light (rather than have that black background) and that the 1/15 second shutter (she claimed she could go down to 1/3!) would not cause the subject to blur, because the flash would light them so well. HUH? I can't imagine that the subject wouldn't blur. Does anyone have a better explaination of this? She was totally confident that it would be fine. I didn't try it, because it sounded stupid, but I can't wait to see her pics. She was so into talking to someone about photography, it was a great talk until she had to get back to work.

it's not stupid at all..sounds similar to this starting point I posted last week..:confused3

iso 400-800
manual or aperture priority
f 1.4-f 4...fastest possible....
1/30 to 1/60 shutter....

a good way to see how this works is , set up outside at night faceing a street, do a long exposure as a car drives by, because the car isn't in one point of the image long enough to get exposed properly you won't see it in the image,things not lit well by the flash won't be as clear in the pic, the flash will light the main subject brightly enough to make a clear image of that and it will not be blurred


One thing I realized too (and I always knew) was that metering for a black tux and a white dress in the same shot is a nightmare! I had to PP almost all my shots to get a better exposure. I wish I could do it direct from the camera, but my knowledge on this is too limited right now.
spot meter for the dress it's better to lose the shadows or dark than the highlight, it's also better to get the bride correct, rather than the groom..
Well, in the end, I ended up with photos that I would think are above average from someone not getting paid to do the event and that makes me pretty darned happy with the whole experience.


good luck on wedding 3..:thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

[AndrewWG]

good luck on wedding 3..:thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

I'll have to give this a try for sure. It seems cool and I was sure she knew what she was talking about, just couldn't grasp the concept at the time.

Luckily, there isn't a third wedding anytime soon. I kind of wish there was from a photography standpoint, but I have had enough of the wedding scene for awhile.

Also, I think it was you who mentioned Zenfolio. That is a great site. I opened a free 14 day account and put the wedding on there. I also ended up getting a full account when I saw how nice it really was. It never gave me the option of using the referral number though. That was a bit annoying. I think I should have put it in when I opened the free account, but I can't recall seeing a place for it. There certainly was no option for it when I "upgraded" my account to a pay account. I'll have to ding them on that one and see what they say.

[Groucho]

I don't think anyone can. and I mean ANYONE. I think there's a pretty good explination of why on the new Canon 40D and Nikon D300 that they are including the ISO in the viewfinder whereas in the past none of the camera's had this feature.
This is an honest question - don't most of the C/N DSLRs at least have an ISO warning in the viewfinder? My camera has an "ISO" indicator that is on in the viewfinder (and top LCD) when the ISO is above a certain level (which you can set in the custom menu.) This is easy to overlook too (otherwise I'd never have forgotten to reset the ISO back down after going outside, which I definitely have done :lmao: including last month at DL) but I suspect that the idea that actually displaying the specific ISO vs an ISO "idiot light" is going to be the magic bullet to stop such things from happening is kind of wishful thinking. There's so much information listed there and if you're anything like me, you're a lot more focused on framing the shot rather that reading the fine print on the bottom!

Probably the only foolproof solution is a giant "HEY IDIOT YOU'RE AT 1600 ISO" (or higher) that shows in the middle of the viewfinder! :lmao:

She claimed that she could use a shutter speed of, like, 1/15 sec with the flash and it would light up the subject AND let the camera record some ambient light (rather than have that black background) and that the 1/15 second shutter (she claimed she could go down to 1/3!) would not cause the subject to blur, because the flash would light them so well. HUH? I can't imagine that the subject wouldn't blur. Does anyone have a better explaination of this?
The others have explained it, I have an example... not exactly the same situation but same basic concept. :)

This was an experiment I was doing last Christmas, I had the monorail set up around out Christmas tree with the Epcot geosphere (note no silly wand attached :teeth: ) and set the camera on a tripod and hand-held my (old) flash to take a shot halfway through. I think I was using my homemade remote shutter release so I was getting variable shutter speeds. This one is 2.1 seconds at F8.

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/gallery/10397-4/Christmas2006-01.jpg

OK, not a great photo by any means, but you can see how the flash "froze" the monorail car even with the shutter being over for over two seconds. (In full size, you can even clearly read the lettering on the side.) With a shorter exposure, you'll see it much more so, because the background won't be as bright.

I just finished going through the 500+ shots I took at a friend's wedding from a couple months ago... they are definitely harder to shoot than they look! I did find that I got some neat photos with the flash and my fisheye lens from the edge of the dance floor. :) Any excuse to bring out the fish..........

[AndrewWG]

This is an honest question - don't most of the C/N DSLRs at least have an ISO warning in the viewfinder? My camera has an "ISO" indicator that is on in the viewfinder (and top LCD) when the ISO is above a certain level (which you can set in the custom menu.) This is easy to overlook too (otherwise I'd never have forgotten to reset the ISO back down after going outside, which I definitely have done :lmao: including last month at DL) but I suspect that the idea that actually displaying the specific ISO vs an ISO "idiot light" is going to be the magic bullet to stop such things from happening is kind of wishful thinking. There's so much information listed there and if you're anything like me, you're a lot more focused on framing the shot rather that reading the fine print on the bottom!

Probably the only foolproof solution is a giant "HEY IDIOT YOU'RE AT 1600 ISO" (or higher) that shows in the middle of the viewfinder! :lmao:


The others have explained it, I have an example... not exactly the same situation but same basic concept. :)

This was an experiment I was doing last Christmas, I had the monorail set up around out Christmas tree with the Epcot geosphere (note no silly wand attached :teeth: ) and set the camera on a tripod and hand-held my (old) flash to take a shot halfway through. I think I was using my homemade remote shutter release so I was getting variable shutter speeds. This one is 2.1 seconds at F8.

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/gallery/10397-4/Christmas2006-01.jpg

OK, not a great photo by any means, but you can see how the flash "froze" the monorail car even with the shutter being over for over two seconds. (In full size, you can even clearly read the lettering on the side.) With a shorter exposure, you'll see it much more so, because the background won't be as bright.

I just finished going through the 500+ shots I took at a friend's wedding from a couple months ago... they are definitely harder to shoot than they look! I did find that I got some neat photos with the flash and my fisheye lens from the edge of the dance floor. :) Any excuse to bring out the fish..........

Groucho,

As far as I have ever seen, the camera (30D) doesn't tell me anything about ISO unless I press the button to change the ISO. This is not a problem because I think I will have a computer chip implanted in my brain to never forget this in the future. My problem was not one of forgetting to change it, but more one of forgetting that it even existed and that it could get me faster shutter speeds! A moron moment that I am glad I found out the answer to before the end of the night. I'm also glad that I was the one who remembered and wasn't being told. At least that made me feel better about it.


That is a cool shot of the Christmas tree monorail. Now, if you hadn't used the flash, what would I see there? I know it wouldn't be as well lit, but I would assume the monorail would be just a blur. Am I right about that?

[boBQuincy]

Here's another example, this one taken at a local theater production using ambient light with flash.
http://suzieandbob.com/caryplayers/medieval/_mg_2884_std.jpg

The EXIF:

Shutter speed: 1/50 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Exposure mode: Av
Exposure compensation: -1/3
Flash: External E-TTL
Flash exposure compensation: -2/3
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Continuous (low): frame 1
ISO: 800
Lens: 24 to 105mm
Focal length: 50mm

Notice the movement of the hand, while most everything else is fairly sharp. This is from the slow shutter speed.

Here is a more extreme example, with a shutter speed of 1/4 second:
http://www.mindspring.com/~bobquincy2/vehicles/IMG_3922_800.jpg

The flash will get a sharp image but any motion will be blurred if the ambient light is set for any appreciable amount of the total mix.

[AndrewWG]

good luck on wedding 3..:thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

Update: I e-mailed Zenfolio and they credited me the $5 and should have given you the referral credit. They got back to me within 30 minutes of my e-mail! Now that is customer service! :thumbsup2

[Groucho]

That is a cool shot of the Christmas tree monorail. Now, if you hadn't used the flash, what would I see there? I know it wouldn't be as well lit, but I would assume the monorail would be just a blur. Am I right about that?
Thanks. I think you'd see almost nothing. Since I fired the flash by hand (completely untethered to anything!), it was not right at the beginning or end of the shutter - the green light is on the nose and note that it extends past where you see the actual nose of the monorail. You can just barely see a shadow there.

Of course, you'd see more of it on a shorter exposure, but this is a handy trick for long exposures. If you keep the shutter open long enough, you can make moving things almost invisible. You'll see this in tripod shots from Disney, and I saw a good example once in a book of a shot of a highway at a short shutter speed, with all the cars visible... and the same shot but with a long shutter (and the aperture changed to keep the same overall exposure) and the highway looks completely empty. Pretty neat.

[AndrewWG]

Here's another example, this one taken at a local theater production using ambient light with flash.
http://suzieandbob.com/caryplayers/medieval/_mg_2884_std.jpg

The EXIF:

Shutter speed: 1/50 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Exposure mode: Av
Exposure compensation: -1/3
Flash: External E-TTL
Flash exposure compensation: -2/3
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Continuous (low): frame 1
ISO: 800
Lens: 24 to 105mm
Focal length: 50mm

Notice the movement of the hand, while most everything else is fairly sharp. This is from the slow shutter speed.

Here is a more extreme example, with a shutter speed of 1/4 second:
http://www.mindspring.com/~bobquincy2/vehicles/IMG_3922_800.jpg

The flash will get a sharp image but any motion will be blurred if the ambient light is set for any appreciable amount of the total mix.

Those are cool examples. The car is nice, but being that there are bright lights, did that cause the motion blur or was it the shutter speed? I like how you can see basically how far the car travelled in 1/4 second by how far the headlights moved.

I am guessing that at the wedding last night in the very dimly lit room, the subject would be frozen by the flash and there would be no motion blur?

This subject is making my head hurt... :confused:

[Groucho]

Groucho,

As far as I have ever seen, the camera (30D) doesn't tell me anything about ISO unless I press the button to change the ISO.
BTW, I did a quick check of a couple reviews, and they indicate that the 30D does show the ISO in the viewfinder...?

Or is it only momentarily as you actually change it?

[AndrewWG]

BTW, I did a quick check of a couple reviews, and they indicate that the 30D does show the ISO in the viewfinder...?

Or is it only momentarily as you actually change it?

First, that would be cool to see how the moving objects don't show up. I'm going to have to try that one for sure. Now I am totally intrigued since it goes against everything I've thought about photography and how it works.

Second, you are right, it does show the ISO in the viewfinder, but I never noticed it because I have to take the camera away from my eye to find the right button to change the ISO. It only shows when you are changing it, not while shooting, unfortunately.

[MICKEY88]

First, that would be cool to see how the moving objects don't show up. I'm going to have to try that one for sure. Now I am totally intrigued since it goes against everything I've thought about photography and how it works.

Second, you are right, it does show the ISO in the viewfinder, but I never noticed it because I have to take the camera away from my eye to find the right button to change the ISO. It only shows when you are changing it, not while shooting, unfortunately.

if you look in this folder, you will see some pics have light trails from cars that drove thru the shot, but you won't see the cars....

http://www.starrrshots.com/p1053022151/?photo=h28FDD3DF#687723487

I just realized there are some other wild shots at the end of the folder, you will see what happens if you zoom during a long exposure..

[MICKEY88]

Update: I e-mailed Zenfolio and they credited me the $5 and should have given you the referral credit. They got back to me within 30 minutes of my e-mail! Now that is customer service! :thumbsup2

hmm I just checked and they didn't give me any credit...:confused3

[AndrewWG]

hmm I just checked and they didn't give me any credit...:confused3

That is odd. I used this code which I copied and pasted from the other thread: XE1-C1X-2JF

Maybe you should fire off an e-mail to them. My user id on zenfolio is awgriffith


Here is the e-mail correspondence I received:

Hello Andrew,

Welcome to Zenfolio, and thank you for contacting us.

We'll be happy to help with that. We have issued $5 credit to your account,
and another $5 credit to the account of the person who referred you.

During signup, there was a field asking for a referral code, you might have
missed it. But it is not a big deal, we have straightened it out for you.

Let us know if you have any other questions, we are here to help.

Regards,
Zenfolio Customer Support

[Groucho]

I just realized there are some other wild shots at the end of the folder, you will see what happens if you zoom during a long exposure..
I did that with Le Cellier in Epcot... (another shot that I haven't corrected white balance on yet).

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/gallery/2506-4/2007WDW-473.jpg

[handicap18]

I just realized there are some other wild shots at the end of the folder, you will see what happens if you zoom during a long exposure..

I remember doing those type of shots in high school photography. I'll have to give it a try again some one of these days. It is a pretty cool effect with the right subject.

I like the images where you zoomed in rather than out.

[MICKEY88]

I remember doing those type of shots in high school photography. I'll have to give it a try again some one of these days. It is a pretty cool effect with the right subject.

I like the images where you zoomed in rather than out.

not sure if it's in that set or not, butr I have some where I zoomed in and out several times during the exposure,,, when I get bored anything can happen..LOL

[MICKEY88]

That is odd. I used this code which I copied and pasted from the other thread: XE1-C1X-2JF

Maybe you should fire off an e-mail to them. My user id on zenfolio is awgriffith


Here is the e-mail correspondence I received:

Hello Andrew,

Welcome to Zenfolio, and thank you for contacting us.

We'll be happy to help with that. We have issued $5 credit to your account,
and another $5 credit to the account of the person who referred you.

During signup, there was a field asking for a referral code, you might have
missed it. But it is not a big deal, we have straightened it out for you.

Let us know if you have any other questions, we are here to help.

Regards,
Zenfolio Customer Support

I emailed them with the info you gave me, and 25 minutes later they emailed back asking me to check again, and sure enough the credit is now there..thanks...:thumbsup2

[AndrewWG]

Sweet, I'm glad that worked out. They have SUPER fast customer service. Even last night (Sunday night!) they got back to me within the half hour. I'm glad I signed up with them.

[MICKEY88]

Sweet, I'm glad that worked out. They have SUPER fast customer service. Even last night (Sunday night!) they got back to me within the half hour. I'm glad I signed up with them.


when I was considering hosting with them I asked about setting prices to sell photos, and watermarking,they told me they were working on that and gave me a rough timeline, they have actually emailed me a few times telling me how progress was on adding the premium service.., \\whether those emails went out to everyone or just me in response to my inquiry, I don't know, but nonetheless I liked being kept informed..

[DVC Jen]

with all of the amazing photography minds on this forum - I was wondering if someone could write a very easy to understand :rolleyes: flash tutorial?

Something that starts very basic and goes into something more advanced.

Flash is still something I am struggling with - understanding exactly how to use it for the best results - how to actually do all of the settings.

OR - at the very least - does anyone have any on line tutorials - something like flash for dummies. :thumbsup2

[dpuck1998]

with all of the amazing photography minds on this forum - I was wondering if someone could write a very easy to understand :rolleyes: flash tutorial?

Something that starts very basic and goes into something more advanced.

Flash is still something I am struggling with - understanding exactly how to use it for the best results - how to actually do all of the settings.

OR - at the very least - does anyone have any on line tutorials - something like flash for dummies. :thumbsup2

I'll be looking for some of those same answers. I'm getting a speedlite for xmas so it will be another new toy to figure out!

[Furgus]

I don't know if you have ever seen the site, strobist.com (http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/), but there are some wonderful, easy to follow instructions for using flash. I really like this site because he deals with everyday people, read not people who have a ton of money to throw away on lighting. Check the site out.
Start on the right under the section "first time here?" and lighting 101.

[Steve's Girl]

I should know the answer to this, but can't seem to figure it out at the moment. (I have been studying for a HUGE professional exam for months now, and my brain is completely fried! I can't think straight to save my life!) I have noticed that when I am using a flash for fill, the shutter speed is the same whether I use the flash or not. If I am using a flash, shouldn't the shutter speed be faster? An example, last week I was taking pictures of the kids outside before they went trick or treating. Without the flash, the camera meter indicated a shutter speed of 1/20th given the ISO and f stop I had selected. When I used the external flash, the shutter speed was also 1/20th. Shouldn't it have been faster? Is there a way to increase the shutter speed without having to increase ISO? (aperature was already wide open).

So, yes, a flash for dummies tutorial would be really useful. I have looked at Strobist, but that kind of makes my head spin. I'm having a hard time trying to get the hang of a flash on-camera much less off-camera.

[MICKEY88]

I should know the answer to this, but can't seem to figure it out at the moment. (I have been studying for a HUGE professional exam for months now, and my brain is completely fried! I can't think straight to save my life!) I have noticed that when I am using a flash for fill, the shutter speed is the same whether I use the flash or not. If I am using a flash, shouldn't the shutter speed be faster? An example, last week I was taking pictures of the kids outside before they went trick or treating. Without the flash, the camera meter indicated a shutter speed of 1/20th given the ISO and f stop I had selected. When I used the external flash, the shutter speed was also 1/20th. Shouldn't it have been faster? Is there a way to increase the shutter speed without having to increase ISO? (aperature was already wide open).

So, yes, a flash for dummies tutorial would be really useful. I have looked at Strobist, but that kind of makes my head spin. I'm having a hard time trying to get the hang of a flash on-camera much less off-camera.

first start by reading te flash manual... all flashes have a max sync speed generaly 1/125 or lower. except top of the line flashes which have a hi speed sync setting.

when using fill flash the idea is for the flash to just light up your shadow areas, not overpower the ambient light, so the speed most likely would not change, you still want some exposure of your background, you could go with manual and set a higher shutter speed but then you will end up with a very dark or black background, with a bright subject which doesn't look very natural, although sometimes this may be the look you're going for..

I've already taken daytime flash pics, with my lens closed down all the way and my shutter as fast as possible, , and getting a nighttime look..

[handicap18]

Sounds like we are thinking about this months assignment.
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1629723

Flash photography is certainly something that many of us tend to just do and not think about. My approach, especially now in the digital world, is to experiment and see what works. I don't' think I'll ever really come close to mastering this part of photography.

Steve's Girl,,, what mode were you in? Aperture Priority or Manual?

[Steve's Girl]

Steve's Girl,,, what mode were you in? Aperture Priority or Manual?

Aperature Priority

Thanks, Mickey88. I know I need to get the manual out, but that will have to wait right now. If it doesn't involve standard deviation, covariance and other hot topics for cocktail party discussion it is on the back burner!

[MarkBarbieri]

This thread (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1603395)had a lot of discussion around flash use.

AV mode is handled differently (at least for Canons, I'm not familiar with those other weird brands I sometimes hear mentioned). With AV mode, your camera uses the same exposure that it would use without the flash and then supplements with the flash. Why the heck would it do that? It is useful when you want to make sure that your background is exposed properly but you still want a flash to add light on your foreground subjects.

Here is an old (and not very good) shot that illustrates the technique. I used the flash to illuminate my wife and son, but I didn't want the distant fountain to look too dark. Using AV mode gave me a compromise exposure. The exposure was long enough to get the background. The flash mostly froze my foreground, but you can see some fringe areas where my wife and son moved during the picture.

http://barbieri.smugmug.com/photos/218769760-M.jpg

If don't want this behaviour, you can turn it off with a custom function. Alternatively, you could use shutter priority, program, or manual exposure modes to get the speed and aperture that you want.