I understood that much soap and I think used Spyder is just as good as a new one especially for personal use.
And one more thingy, I am now one happy camper with my monitor calibrated and my printed photos being exactly what I wanted.

Then I guess I use the useless stuff :^) Monitor calibration really isn't my problem right now, and I don't want to worry about it unless I have too. Nobody's said anything until now, so why should I worry? If suddenly everybody complains, I'll calibrate it, but otherwise I still don't see what it's worth.

mb - I was quoting used prices, not some new-fangled discount brand.

Monitor calibration is not subjective if you use good quality calibrator like 200$ Spyder.
If you use some software so called calibration utility it is not only subjective it is usually useless.

I'm not pushing you to get it. I'm simply correcting incorrect statements. Monitor calibration is not subjective.

Soap, I appreciate you pushing me to get this $50 Spyder calibrator, but that's still a lot of money to me. I'm not going to be pushed—so far EVERYBODY in my real world has been happy with the images that come from my monitor. Right now, that's good enough for me. I mean, if I was having real problems with my monitor, I most likely would have done something about it already.

Oh, and the point of the better lens is so that I don't have to use flash! I hate flash—only use it when I have to. That's why I bought a monopod—so I can use 1/15 as my shutter speed when I'm shooting for the school yearbook and such.

Monitor calibration is objective, not subjective (not subject to individual preference).

The first photo of the boy is objectively bleached out and details have been lost. There is no point buying a better lens (unless you want to play the e-penis game on forums) if you're throwing away the data delivered to your sensor by your current lens.

Thanks for the feedback. At this point I think it's completely a matter of preference. So does anybody know why I don't get metering when I use the flash in manual?

I agree with you soap. The photos of taken in i-TTL at reasonable ISO's all look fine to me. The one of the little kid which he thinks is exposed properly is definitely blown out.

Soap: I don't know how many customers bring in pictures to print and don't understand that what they had showing on their home computer is not what we end up printing, I would say a calibrated monitor is a most if you are doing any work on your pictures.

And Alpha, your D300 will try to even out the exposure without things looking like they are been blown out by the flash, unless you like that "deer caught in the headlight look" your SB400 does not have a lot of power, but did you try to bounce into a white card, and just shoot in P, don't fight the camera

Pete

Not sure. Is it a monitor problem? Do you agree with Soap's take on the exposure of the photos or alphanikonrex? We both have decent reasons to believe our take is right. ;)

The one nagging thing which makes me doubt my answer is that most LCD monitors ship way too bright. Bright and oversaturated sells. I would have expected alphanikonrex to err the other direction if it were a monitor issue.

(On the other hand the average CRT monitor starts to lose brightness after 16 months.)

So, this is a monitor problem not a Flash/Camera problem? Are you using a laptop or a desktop? Is your desktop connected to your monitor via VGA, DVI, or HDMI?

More or less... I have a $10 allowance. I really need to find a good way to earn. I have done a portrait job, but that was as a donation to the school's silent auction. Whoever I took pictures for bidded almost $100 I think. Unless there's a miracle and I win a photo competition or something, I guess I'll be saving for a long time.

Also, my pictures look fine on OTHER uncalibrated monitors, so as long as the audience likes it I'm happy with that.

THAT I have no idea on. I've always used Nikon flashes in whatever their latest magic-mode is. I subscribe to the Strobist.com philosophy for all else. (though the idea of wireless i-TTL is tempting.)

$50 for a used Spyder sets you back two months? You're saving for 8 years?

Prints turning out fine is a GOOD sign. It is not a DEFINITIVE sign.

Wait until someone else either concurs or disagrees with me. ;)
Today is day 42 since last calibration - I've been on the road for six weeks - maybe my monitor blew up in that time! ;)

Er...well in that case, are you suggesting I wait an entire two months for my __-200 ƒ/2.8 to get my monitor calibrated?! *Sigh* Is it really that important? I like to dream about 70-200 ƒ/2.8's, not spyders ;^) After all, prints are turning out fine. Isn't that enough sign that my monitor's AOK?

So you think that my Nikon's actually being smart? I like that as a solution. That makes sense, and I actually like that. OK, no more need to complain about TTL. Thanks a bunch soap :^)

Now for my second question: How come I don't get proper meter readouts when I am in manual flash control?

I answered why it allows more light to enter. Sorry if I was editing while you were posting.

And I really can't ignore the second batch of photos - your perceptions of the photos is really the entire point of this thread.

I also must emphasize that monitor calibration is the single most important thing a photographer can do. The idea that any lens is worth more than a calibrated monitor is so far beyond I don't know where to begin.

Well, here's what I know: When I print pictures at a lab, the ones that look properly exposed to me print properly exposed, with the lab's crazy autocorrect feature turned off. So if they print correct, then I assume what I see is correct. I really don't have money to put into monitor calibration—I'd rather put it into lenses any day. My lenses are pathetic.

Can we ignore the second batch of photos for a second? Let's simply focus on the first set: why would the camera allow more light to enter it when instead it could crank up the flash?

Whatever? I'm challenging the entire original thesis of this thread. How are you viewing your photos? Your monitor is your most important tool.

I'd like some other input - but I think the fist photo of the second set is not normal and the second is not under.
My opinion as of now is that you're getting frustrated fighting a non-existent problem.

As for why it chose less flash and 1/60th instead of more flash and 1/250th - that's because it is attempting to balance light - not create harsh artificial-only light. It is allowing as much ambient in as possible (in dim situations) while still maintaining a shutter speed which is more than adequate for non-action shots. It does the opposite in extremely bright ambient situations.

Whatever. We can deal with my monitor later.

The question is still, why would the camera choose to use 1/60 for ƒ/4.5 when it could have fired a more powerful flash and use something more like 1/250 for ƒ/8?

The graycard test appears to be done at too close of range.
The other one, I think your monitor is out of wack. What you're calling normal exposure has bleached out skintones and lack of fabric details due to being over-lit. I suspect you like the 1st's histogram more? The second one is not underexposed - it is poorly lit.

Save the money on a SB-600 buy a used Spyder2 for $50 on ebay.

Good idea, I'll do that. Thanks jonny :^)

alpha, have you contacted Nikon support? I'll bet they've seen something similar if it's something simple.

Ok Pete, I'll get a SB-600. Just lend me a few hundreds please ;^) But I really should have gotten one to begin with! I'd get an SB-600 if I weren't saving up for a __-200 ƒ2.8.

Just tested it. Same problem: underexposure.