DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon EOS 300D & Speedlite 420EX - What's wrong?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/24/2004 10:49:48 PM · #1
Good evening everybody,

I am in charge of trying to get decent photos of the company personel for the website and to update company records. I am using a Canon EOS 300D and a Speedlite 420EX so I can bounce the flash light. The room I am using is medium-small and mostly white. The speedlite in working in E-TTL so it shots a primary burst, reads the reflective light and then shots the second burst while actualy taking the picture. So everything seems to be OK. But no. The photos are getting way too dark: when looking at the histogram, only the first 4/5 of the range is being used. Trying to compensate for that leaves me with a lousy quality photo. I know that the flash is modulating is power according to the reflection it gets from the first burst and I can tell that it I shoot 1/60 f5.6 or 1/10 f5.6 , the latter results in a much stronger flash, but the odd part is that whatever the setting I used, the picture turned out allways equaly dark. Is like when you shoot in Program using natural light: The camera finds what it thinks is a good exposure and then the only things I could do would be to change on the exposure compensation and ask for a ligther (up to +2) or darker (up to -2) photo, taking the cameras opinion as the reference point. The bizzare thing is that whatever I do I can never get a lighter photo (or darker as a matter of fact!) So far I tried:
Exposure compensation: -2 and +2 give the same result (!)
Auto-Exposure-Bracketing: does not work with the speedlite, ignores menu option
Manual 1/60 f5.6 or 1/10 f5.6 (same result, the flash compensates by firing softer)
FEL - flash exposure lock - works partially: I fire the first flash at a darker subject and then recompose the shot to take a portrait. But this leaves me with lots of guess works...

Soo, is having a Speedlite 420EX the samething as having a fully auto camera?... HELP!!!
01/25/2004 02:11:53 AM · #2
Hey there; welcome to my world. I've been wrestling with my 550EX for almost a month and getting similar results but I mitigated that by putting either a pocket bounce on the flash and pointing it directly at the subject or putting a LumiQuest 80/20 bounce with inserts and diffuser cover.

Have you read this article on EOS flashes yet. You might want to check the what mode you have the camera in, the degree of tilt you have the flash head (if it's straight up you'll have to put something like the LumiQuest on the head to get any decent angle towards your subject). This has been a major challenge as shooting with a P-S camera you kinda take some things for granted about how metering and fill flash work on those cams. With the 10D/D300 and a 420EX/550EX flash unit you have to learn more.

If you're in AV mode I'd suggest using that mode and tilting the head over to about 70 degrees. Then again, it could depend on your metering mode. How are you metering the shot? In the camera? This is important because it could be that something in the background near the subject that is throwing off the camera, too. Perhaps your camera and flash is firing perfectly based on some light spot that throws off the exposure across whole image.

Kev
01/25/2004 02:31:44 AM · #3
how far away from the subject are you?

01/25/2004 11:44:32 AM · #4
Kevin hit on some very good places to start. Since your room is mostly white, if you are not "spot" metering on the person, you will get the image averaged to 18% gray, and the person will be underexposed because of the white background. If you use center metering only, you may find that your exposure varies too much because of different clothing if the metering spot is not on their face. Since you're using the same composition repeatedly, you obviously want to fix both the camera and subject position for efficiency and consistency.
I would also suggest exactly what Kevin suggested; buy and use the Lumiquest 80/20. It will give you a little direct "fill" light, which will help with bringing the subjec tbrighness up.
Finally, when setting the flash head angle, mentally imagine the light emitting straight from the head, reflecting off the ceiling, and to the subject. For example, if the subject is 10 feet away and the ceiling is 5 ft above the camera/subject, you'll need a 45-degree angle, or thereabouts, for best performance.
01/25/2004 12:01:07 PM · #5
I have just recently purchased the 420EX SpeedLite for my Digital Rebel and have had varying results depending on the setup. So far I have gotten my best results either bouncing off of ceiling (close subject w/8-9 foot white ceiling) and with my Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer. I have just received my pocket bounder but have so far been very happy with the results.

My friend TerryGee has also had excellent results with the OmniBounce flash diffuser. She may be willing to share some of her results if you ask her.

Also, if you are trying to fill a huge room, well... It may just be too much for the little flash. If you will continue to do large group shots or such you may want to look into a reasonably priced studio strobe set.

Just my 2 cents! Good Luck!!!

Post some of your results here if you can.
01/25/2004 03:09:29 PM · #6
I guess Bill already mentioned me, so I'll put my two cents in.
I bought the 420ex about a month ago. I fooled around with it for only a short period before I shot a wedding. Here are the results of that wedding shoot.
All the exif data is there so you can see what settings I used.
I was extremely pleased with the results. I generally use either M(manual) or P(program)when using the flash. All shots are with the omnibounce and pointed to the ceiling. Ceiling was on the high side as it was in a NY loft. I used no additional light besides the flash.

I also did not do any spot metering.
So maybe I was just lucky, but feel this flash is awesome.

Message edited by author 2004-01-25 15:11:41.
01/25/2004 11:57:51 PM · #7
Terry,

You used ISO 400 on all the shots I looked at. Have you noticed any problems with clients/friends wanting to blowup a photo and you have too much grain/noise in the image?
I just want to be sure I understand: you put the StoFen OmniBounce (mostly white plastic cover) on the 420EX flash head and pointed the head directly up at the ceiling, right?
By the way, you got some great captures there and it looks like the flash effect you produced was even strong enough to stop the action during the dancing and candids after the ceremony. Good shots and thanks for sharing.

Kev
01/26/2004 08:59:17 AM · #8
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Terry,

You used ISO 400 on all the shots I looked at. Have you noticed any problems with clients/friends wanting to blowup a photo and you have too much grain/noise in the image?
I just want to be sure I understand: you put the StoFen OmniBounce (mostly white plastic cover) on the 420EX flash head and pointed the head directly up at the ceiling, right?
By the way, you got some great captures there and it looks like the flash effect you produced was even strong enough to stop the action during the dancing and candids after the ceremony. Good shots and thanks for sharing.

Kev

I used 400 on most of the shots at the advice of the other photographer. I did switch down to 200 for some. The pics really didnt come out grainy looking. I was the 2nd shooter and that was my test run, so I don't think I am expecting many to be used.For the most part with weddings, they only blow up one or two to a 11x14. The rest are 8x10 or smaller. I dont think the grain will be a problem.
Yes, I used the omni and shot straight up. My only problem shots were with the verticals. For anyone planning that kind of shooting I strongly suggest getting a bracket.I will be getting one before my next wedding.
One other note, all shots were hand held using the Canon 28-105mm.
01/26/2004 09:05:12 AM · #9
I have gotten better results bouncing from the ceiling without the omnibounce. The bounce itself provides adequate diffusion. Bouncing with the omnibounce diminishes the effectiveness of the flash quite a bit.
01/26/2004 10:26:23 AM · #10
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I have gotten better results bouncing from the ceiling without the omnibounce. The bounce itself provides adequate diffusion. Bouncing with the omnibounce diminishes the effectiveness of the flash quite a bit.


I'm sure thats true. I kept it on because there were times when the flash wasnt bounced(some vertical shots). I think the omni also warms the color a little too.
01/26/2004 10:41:58 AM · #11
I haven't noticed any warming effect yet. The flash will changed color cast based on what you bounce it off of tho...
01/26/2004 10:51:09 AM · #12
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I haven't noticed any warming effect yet. The flash will changed color cast based on what you bounce it off of tho...

I had tested it direct at someones face with and without the omni. The omni appeared to warm the facial tones.
01/26/2004 11:07:15 AM · #13
Originally posted by TerryGee:


I kept it on because there were times when the flash wasnt bounced(some vertical shots).


I'm confused. Seems to me that the 420EX allows you to swivel the head to bounce on the verticals as well. Or have I not understood?
01/26/2004 11:30:20 AM · #14
Originally posted by mariomel:

I'm confused. Seems to me that the 420EX allows you to swivel the head to bounce on the verticals as well. Or have I not understood?


When you turn the camera on its Z axis to take a portrait (or any shot that is longer on the vertical edge) you still want to keep the flash head above the lens rather than to the side of the lens. This is because the flash will throw a shadow and if you have the flash off to the side then the shadow you cast may visibly affect the subject's features so that one side of their face appears very well lit while the other side trails into shadows. This isn't the way most people are familiar with recognizing faces; we normally see them lit from above (either with manmade lights or the sun or mooon or whatever). In keeping with the principle of lighting a subject from an almost even or an elevated plane with his/her face/eyes some people make brackets so that you can turn the camera on its side longways and still keep the flash head over the subject. None of this negates the effects that you can create by turning the 420EX or 550EX flash head; those can be used to good artistic effect but they will tend to make a person appear different than you are used to seeing them (which may be exactly what you want to differentiate your portrait of someone).

Here's a picture of my 10D with a Newton flash bracket, the 550EX and the LumiQuest 80/20 pocket bounce with the white insert (for places with high ceilings).
. All this equipment is specifically designed for portraiture. It has no impact on sports or landscape photography (as a matter of comparison). I can tell you that the ability to move the flash away from the lens and to keep it oriented from above the lens has improved the quality of my shots even though I still have a tough time getting the fill flash exactly right. The LumiQuest 80/20 kit made a huge difference in fill flash and in putitng catchlights in my subjects' eyes.
01/26/2004 12:00:36 PM · #15
I get it, Thanks.
01/26/2004 02:41:17 PM · #16
you most certainly can swivel the 420 to bounce on a vertical shot but it doesnt work well as Kevin pointed out.It is off to one side of the camera, and will cast strong shadows. Also, it takes a bit of time to switch the bounce direction, and when shooting a wedding you tend to forget to change it.
I can't stress the need enough for a bracket in these situations.
01/26/2004 03:11:30 PM · #17
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I have gotten better results bouncing from the ceiling without the omnibounce. The bounce itself provides adequate diffusion. Bouncing with the omnibounce diminishes the effectiveness of the flash quite a bit.


I found that in a few of Terry's photos the color seemed washed out. Is that from the flash?
01/26/2004 07:20:49 PM · #18
It is well worth reading that photonotes article that Kevin linked to.

It is also worth in particular focusing on the pretty major differences in flash exposure between P, (Av, Tv) and M exposure modes.

Also, it is worth understanding that the exposure eval is based upon the active focal point - so if you point it at something really reflective you'll get really underexposed shots, depending on bounce angles and so on.

Also you mention you are using exposure compensation - is that flash exposure compensation or ambient light exposure compensation (these are two different adjustments on the camera, and depending on your exposure mode (av/ tv/ m/ p) etc, some will do nothing while the other will change everything.

Message edited by author 2004-01-26 19:21:55.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 11:40:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 11:40:16 AM EDT.