I got them. If they are bad example photos, let me know and I'll make some better ones.
http://homepage.mac.com/adbilge/Flash1.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/adbilge/Flash2.jpg
I Absolutely HATE my SB-400!
(87 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Here's another pair from a real life situation:
Posted 3 years ago # -
Of the first two photos - is http://homepage.mac.com/adbilge/Flash2.jpg supposed to be pure white?
Of the second two - does the first not look overexposed to you?Posted 3 years ago # -
First set: You told me to fire the flash at full output, and that is exactly what I got: pure overexposure.
Second set: No, the first is correctly exposed and the second is under.
EDIT: Actually, if you look at the bottom right corner of the completely over exposed image, you can see a little bit that isn't.
Posted 3 years ago # -
In the first set of pics your metering is in spot metering. Meaning, the camera will only meter for where your focus point is set to. On the D300 there is a little wheel around the Auto Exposure Lock Button. Turn it to where this D300's is. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300/images/d300-back-up.jpg
Posted 3 years ago # -
I know, I know, I'm not stupid! ;^) I set it like that on purpose, and took my meter reading off of the gray card in the picture. Does it make a significant difference where I take my reading?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Have you checked your flash exposure comp? Hold the button that pops up the flash and turn the front wheel until it reads 0.0 if it already doesn't.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Not really, but for test's sake might as well make it Matrix metering.
Posted 3 years ago # -
There's NO flash compensation at all—I would have noticed! I appreciate your trying to help, but I've already ruled out the simple stuff. I need your help to think out of the box.
EDIT: Oh, BTW (no offense or anything), your instructions aren't correct. The flash pop-up button on my D300 ONLY pops up the flash (it's not electronic at all). There's a second button that actually controls flash modes.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Fine. I'll go take another shot with matrix metering. I'm too lazy to post it, so I'll just tell you the results.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Alpha save your pennies and get that SB 600 or better before you get flashburn or something. I have the SB 900, have used the SB 600 at work and they just work great in any mode from P,A,S or M if you want to, I usually use A for DOF control and set ISO for exposure dept. I usually bounce into card/ceiling
Good luck, don't look straight into flash to check ~~~~~~~ :>)
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
This doesn't have anything to do with the SB-400 vs SB-600. There is a hardware error somewhere. Something is wrong with the Camera or something is wrong with the flash. It doesn't have to do with the SB-600 being a higher model than the SB-400.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Just tested it. Same problem: underexposure.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
alpha, have you contacted Nikon support? I'll bet they've seen something similar if it's something simple.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Good idea, I'll do that. Thanks jonny :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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?
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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?
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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?
Posted 3 years ago # -
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?
Posted 3 years ago # -
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! ;)Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
