What is causing this, how do I fix it?

11/05/2006 02:07:20 AM · #26

Originally posted by JRalston:

So how fast of a shutter speed can you use for high speed? Am I correct that it is not often you will need to use high speed?

I would imagine any shutter speed. Because all the flash has to do is expose for 1/250th of a second, no matter what shutter speed you pick.

I use high speed mode whenever I'm in a fast-paced outdoor situation where I'm using the flash as a fill flash (i.e. at weddings). I don't have time to mess with the camera to get the correct exposure, and the situations are rapidly changing, so I pick one of the program modes (I'm almost always in Av mode). To ensure that I don't accidentally get into too much light, where faster than 1/200th (on my 5D) would be required, I set the flash to high speed mode so that I can just keep shooting without worrying that the camera might accidentally over expose the image. (in other words, I have run into the exact same problem you were having, where the camera was forcing too slow of a shutter speed for the aperture selected, which subsequently over exposed the image)

So I use it when I have to. But as soon as I'm indoors, or out of potentially bright light, I turn high speed mode back off.

11/05/2006 02:21:41 AM · #27

Ok, here are some examples from the practicing. (I just had my son sit in a chair for me....ignore the composition...LOL)

Ok, first is what I usually do and where my pictures look like crap...LOL

1/250th, f/5.6, Manual

1/250th, f/8, Manual

1/200th f/11, Manual

Huge difference. You guys rock. The background (except for the sky) looks the most acurate in the first photo that I took in Av mode. The sky looks the most acurate in the 2nd or 3rd photo. I'd say the 2nd photo looks the best as far as representing the background and getting a good exposure on my son.

edit: Why does he look so warm in all the photos? Is that ok? I have my white balance set to automatic. If I scroll through my settings, the color temp is set to 5200K. Is that only for when you are using Custom White Balance???

Message edited by author 2006-11-05 02:25:47.

11/05/2006 02:23:43 AM · #28

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by JRalston:
So how fast of a shutter speed can you use for high speed? Am I correct that it is not often you will need to use high speed?

I would imagine any shutter speed. Because all the flash has to do is expose for 1/250th of a second, no matter what shutter speed you pick.

I use high speed mode whenever I'm in a fast-paced outdoor situation where I'm using the flash as a fill flash (i.e. at weddings). I don't have time to mess with the camera to get the correct exposure, and the situations are rapidly changing, so I pick one of the program modes (I'm almost always in Av mode). To ensure that I don't accidentally get into too much light, where faster than 1/200th (on my 5D) would be required, I set the flash to high speed mode so that I can just keep shooting without worrying that the camera might accidentally over expose the image. (in other words, I have run into the exact same problem you were having, where the camera was forcing too slow of a shutter speed for the aperture selected, which subsequently over exposed the image)

So I use it when I have to. But as soon as I'm indoors, or out of potentially bright light, I turn high speed mode back off.

That makes sense. So basically, for portraits when you have time to slow down, you turn the H off. When you are running like crazy trying not to miss a moment, you turn the H on. Do you sacrifice distance with H?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/05/2006 02:29:37 AM · #29

Originally posted by JRalston:

Do you sacrifice distance with H?

I don't think so. But you do sacrifice batteries and recycle times. Luckily it's only playing "fill flash" and so if the flash doesn't go off, it's not the end of the world. (a little dodging in post works wonders)

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/05/2006 02:31:36 AM · #30

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by igoofry:
I assume you are using a hood when shooting. I have had a similar problem on some shots. The exposure on the subject matter is not way off, but the overall picture looks washed out. I found a lot of the problem being flare in the lens. I really picked up on it the other day when shooting some portraits. The view through the camera looked a little washed out. I put my hand up to shade the lens and sure enough, I could see a big difference through the camera.

Bingo!

You really need to use the hood with the 24-70. The second bit of advice is, if you used a filter, remove it! I've been in several situations with this lens using a filter (*with* the hood!), and experiencing strong loss of contrast that was easily visible in the viewfinder. Removing the filter helped immensely.

If you do that don't you have to perhaps move the flash off the hot shoe to avoid losing flash coverage?

11/05/2006 02:35:58 AM · #31

Originally posted by JRalston:

Why does he look so warm in all the photos? Is that ok? I have my white balance set to automatic.

I never use automatic WB because, all you have to do is aim the camera a little differently so that you fill the frame with more red or more blue or more yellow, whatever, and the camera will pick a different WB for the exposure. Auto means whatever the camera sees in the frame, it looks for an overall color scheme and turns it to a neutral color. So if you fill the frame with someone wearing a red shirt... it's not gonna be red when the camera gets done with it. But back up a bit, so that you don't fill the frame with red, and the camera might actually pick a good white balance.

My preference is two-fold:

1) Set the camera to whatever WB I will be shooting. Most often I just set it to cloudy. Even in bright sun, I just leave it there. But if I'm indoors shooting mostly by flash, I set the WB to flash. No flash? I set it to tungsten or fluorescent, etc. At least this way, the WB will be "close" to what I'm shooting. However, I do occasionally forget to change my WB as I move from one situation to the next.

2) But that's okay, I also shoot RAW-only. That means that after the fact, I can fix up the WB or even just fine-tune it. So the whole purpose of setting the WB on camera is merely to give me a starting point in the raw converter.

So if you shoot raw, you could use Auto WB and get away with it. Because the WB isn't truly set, yet. But auto WB is so fraught with troubles, I figure ... why bother?

11/05/2006 02:39:29 AM · #32

Originally posted by dwterry:

So if you shoot raw, you could use Auto WB and get away with it. Because the WB isn't truly set, yet. But auto WB is so fraught with troubles, I figure ... why bother?

I do shoot RAW 99.999% of the time. However, when doing sports I shoot RAW + Large JPEG. Oftentimes, I find that my sports photos don't need much more than cropping. When I am shooting for the paper, cropping is all I am allowed to do! So...shooting with the correct WB saves me time in such situations.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/05/2006 02:48:54 AM · #33

Originally posted by JRalston:

I do shoot RAW 99.999% of the time. However, when doing sports I shoot RAW + Large JPEG.

Yeah, for sports, I don't even do that much. I only shoot JPEG for sports, otherwise the camera can't keep up with the action.

sacredspirit

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

11/05/2006 02:49:17 AM · #34

I don't know if anybody has said it yet, and I really don't feel like reading the entire thread right now. A neutral density filter would help, I'm almost positive.

11/05/2006 02:51:54 AM · #35

Originally posted by sacredspirit:

I don't know if anybody has said it yet, and I really don't feel like reading the entire thread right now. A neutral density filter would help, I'm almost positive.

But a ND filter would darken the whole scene. Wouldn't I still be left with the same exposure issues? A graduated ND filter might work nicely provided the peoples heads were not in the sky, like in the picture I posted. However, I think I would still have the same flare issues.

Message edited by author 2006-11-05 02:52:59.

fotomann_forever

11/05/2006 03:03:31 AM · #36

Originally posted by JRalston:

Originally posted by sacredspirit:
I don't know if anybody has said it yet, and I really don't feel like reading the entire thread right now. A neutral density filter would help, I'm almost positive.

But a ND filter would darken the whole scene. Wouldn't I still be left with the same exposure issues? A graduated ND filter might work nicely provided the peoples heads were not in the sky, like in the picture I posted. However, I think I would still have the same flare issues.

Yes, the ND filter would darken the whole scene.

Remember in the other thread that I was talking about dragging the shutter to allow more ambient light to fill the scene.

While still in manual mode you can go down to 1/125 1/60 1/30 or even slower to allow more ambient light to fill the scene. This will give you a bit more natural look, because as you slow the shutter, you will also have to close the aperture.

In flash photography, closing the aperture limits the amount of light that reaches the snesor.

Rmember this:
Aperture controls amount of flash
Shutter speed controls amount of natural light.

Playing around with both settings you can learn to balance the scene.

ND filters can come in handy if you want to go with the longer exposure times for more balance of natural light. But, they do also cut down the amount of flash, so it's a trade off.

More valuable in most outdoor portrait settings is a Circular Polarizer.

Message edited by author 2006-11-05 03:05:32.