Canon flash
- Thread starter rlarsen
- Start date
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
They all do. Just do a little background reading on what it is trying to do and you will come to terms with it.
Remember, the 'subject' (actually the object closest to the camera) is all the flash is trying to illuminate in most situations, things like differing subject to background distances will give vastly different overall exposure but should prioritise what it 'thinks' is your subject and that should be fairly constant.
They all do. Just do a little background reading on what it is trying to do and you will come to terms with it.
Remember, the 'subject' (actually the object closest to the camera) is all the flash is trying to illuminate in most situations, things like differing subject to background distances will give vastly different overall exposure but should prioritise what it 'thinks' is your subject and that should be fairly constant.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
I find ETTL II to be fairly consistent providing the flash head is pointing directly at the subject and there are no reflective surfaces around. I also find having the camera in Manual when flash in ETTL II mode more controllable than any auto mode.
The two issues of course are resultant yuk lighting and that there always seems to be reflective surfaces around! ;D
Switching to manual mode and working likes it's 1977 is no answer
Well it is for me when using bounce flash and/or want to balance with external light (i.e. window light) and I want to at least feel like I'm in control
I find ETTL II to be fairly consistent providing the flash head is pointing directly at the subject and there are no reflective surfaces around. I also find having the camera in Manual when flash in ETTL II mode more controllable than any auto mode.
The two issues of course are resultant yuk lighting and that there always seems to be reflective surfaces around! ;D
Switching to manual mode and working likes it's 1977 is no answer
Well it is for me when using bounce flash and/or want to balance with external light (i.e. window light) and I want to at least feel like I'm in control
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
Sounds like you need to regroup.
Great teacher: http://neilvn.com/tangents/
Sounds like you need to regroup.
Great teacher: http://neilvn.com/tangents/
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
My experience is that E-TTL II works very well. A bit hot, but easily compensated.
Occasionally I get something really off (like 3 stops too much light) but that is only a few percent of the time.
Perhaps you units are bad or have a bad connection to your camera.
My experience is that E-TTL II works very well. A bit hot, but easily compensated.
Occasionally I get something really off (like 3 stops too much light) but that is only a few percent of the time.
Perhaps you units are bad or have a bad connection to your camera.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
As someone who actually used strobes in 1977, I can assure you, no matter what your experience, it's nothing like trying to shoot with a potato masher strobe. Constant guesswork and prayer. Batteries that lasted for about five shots and overpriced cords with wires so thin that they broke after about two assignments.
I'd love to know what stress-free, fun photography for a paying client feels like. Never had that experience myself. I'm always stressed. But maybe that's just me.
Anyway, I mostly use TTL with multiple strobes and on-location portrait shoots. In my experience, it's brilliant. (Although I have had problems with slow recycle times, even with battery packs, but that's primarily my own impatience). Fortunately, I don't have to do a lot of event shoots with strobes (I'd shoot myself if I had to earn a living doing wedding receptions, fundraisers and galas.) When I have done those events, the ETTL works quite well, once I've done a few test shots. Not perfect, but certainly better than the 1970s. And, unlike the 1970s, you can usually rescue an image that's reasonably close to correct. (Hmm..maybe that three-stop shadow lifting with new sensors isn't such a waste after all)
This is one of the bad things about talking about strobes. People are often unclear about whether they are referring to "manual" on the camera or "manual" on the strobe. I am assuming the OP is talking about keeping the strobe in manual, rather than the camera. Using manual mode on the camera is, in my opinion, about the only way to use a strobe unless you are just going for some fill light or have a specific effect in mind.
rlarsen said:
As someone who actually used strobes in 1977, I can assure you, no matter what your experience, it's nothing like trying to shoot with a potato masher strobe. Constant guesswork and prayer. Batteries that lasted for about five shots and overpriced cords with wires so thin that they broke after about two assignments.
rlarsen said:
I'd love to know what stress-free, fun photography for a paying client feels like. Never had that experience myself. I'm always stressed. But maybe that's just me.
Anyway, I mostly use TTL with multiple strobes and on-location portrait shoots. In my experience, it's brilliant. (Although I have had problems with slow recycle times, even with battery packs, but that's primarily my own impatience). Fortunately, I don't have to do a lot of event shoots with strobes (I'd shoot myself if I had to earn a living doing wedding receptions, fundraisers and galas.) When I have done those events, the ETTL works quite well, once I've done a few test shots. Not perfect, but certainly better than the 1970s. And, unlike the 1970s, you can usually rescue an image that's reasonably close to correct. (Hmm..maybe that three-stop shadow lifting with new sensors isn't such a waste after all)
zim said:
This is one of the bad things about talking about strobes. People are often unclear about whether they are referring to "manual" on the camera or "manual" on the strobe. I am assuming the OP is talking about keeping the strobe in manual, rather than the camera. Using manual mode on the camera is, in my opinion, about the only way to use a strobe unless you are just going for some fill light or have a specific effect in mind.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
What could be worse?
Making pretty much exactly the same rant as six months ago, but, apparently, being completely unable to figure out something better...
Haven't you, rlarsen, determined what was wrong with your Speedlite, learned how to use it, or found something better?
And your post is so general that readers can only guess what troubles you are having.
One more constructive suggestion, in addition to the great teacher mentioned in an earlier post, read Syl Arena's Speedliter's Handbook.
Are you here to learn or to just vent about not knowing how to use an essential tool?
What could be worse?
Making pretty much exactly the same rant as six months ago, but, apparently, being completely unable to figure out something better...
Haven't you, rlarsen, determined what was wrong with your Speedlite, learned how to use it, or found something better?
And your post is so general that readers can only guess what troubles you are having.
One more constructive suggestion, in addition to the great teacher mentioned in an earlier post, read Syl Arena's Speedliter's Handbook.
Are you here to learn or to just vent about not knowing how to use an essential tool?
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
I have a buddy who likes to build things, but couldn't drive nails in straight with his Stanley hammer. Knowing it was the tool's fault, he bought a $150 Estwing hammer. More bent nails. Being a smart guy, he immediately understood that with tools, you get what you pay for, so he called in favor from a friend at the Pentagon and borrowed one of their infamous $10,000 hammers. Damn it all, but that awesomely premium hammer still failed to drive nails in straight.
I'm sure rlarsen, being a bright guy like my buddy, will immediately grasp the moral of the story: there's no such thing as a good tool.
I have a buddy who likes to build things, but couldn't drive nails in straight with his Stanley hammer. Knowing it was the tool's fault, he bought a $150 Estwing hammer. More bent nails. Being a smart guy, he immediately understood that with tools, you get what you pay for, so he called in favor from a friend at the Pentagon and borrowed one of their infamous $10,000 hammers. Damn it all, but that awesomely premium hammer still failed to drive nails in straight.
I'm sure rlarsen, being a bright guy like my buddy, will immediately grasp the moral of the story: there's no such thing as a good tool.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
Well, clearly that's not the fault of Canon's E-TTL II system. Didn't your friend explain how it's supposed to work? See, the actuators on the head hinge/pivot (it has them, trust me) determine the angle of elevation and rotation. Then, the E-TTL II system determines the most appropriate option of the two available – either the Star Trek tricorder in the camera body or the bent-light reversible laser in the flash – to measure the distance to the surface off which the light will be bounced and the angle of that surface relative to the image plane. Thus, the camera can determine the difference between the lens distance to subject and the longer distance the light from the flash must travel to reach that same subject, and use that difference to set the flash exposure properly with bounce mode.
Oops, my bad...that's E-TTL III. Should be out very soon.
rlarsen said:
Well, clearly that's not the fault of Canon's E-TTL II system. Didn't your friend explain how it's supposed to work? See, the actuators on the head hinge/pivot (it has them, trust me) determine the angle of elevation and rotation. Then, the E-TTL II system determines the most appropriate option of the two available – either the Star Trek tricorder in the camera body or the bent-light reversible laser in the flash – to measure the distance to the surface off which the light will be bounced and the angle of that surface relative to the image plane. Thus, the camera can determine the difference between the lens distance to subject and the longer distance the light from the flash must travel to reach that same subject, and use that difference to set the flash exposure properly with bounce mode.
Oops, my bad...that's E-TTL III. Should be out very soon.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
I always shoot with the camera and all flashes I use in manual (in the past 6 months), but that's because I'm a control freak. It is also because I like to shape the effect I want. Works very well for stationary people or what have you.
I would imagine that maybe that cannot be done at parties, etc... Just too much going on all over the place. I don't shoot events and I'm no pro.
You sure know a lot of pros.
Y'all should get together and brainstorm what the problem is and come to some kind of consensus about what to do. You never know. Y'all could probably come up with something to benefit all of us.
rlarsen said:
I always shoot with the camera and all flashes I use in manual (in the past 6 months), but that's because I'm a control freak. It is also because I like to shape the effect I want. Works very well for stationary people or what have you.
I would imagine that maybe that cannot be done at parties, etc... Just too much going on all over the place. I don't shoot events and I'm no pro.
You sure know a lot of pros.
Y'all should get together and brainstorm what the problem is and come to some kind of consensus about what to do. You never know. Y'all could probably come up with something to benefit all of us.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
As matter of interest, rlarsen are you saying Canon is a POS compared to [brand X] and because [brand X] can do it so should Canon? Or are you decrying that camera systems in general the lack of a feature you think should exist?
The latter would suggest it is a technological problem, not a Canon problem (which is how I read your OP).
As matter of interest, rlarsen are you saying Canon is a POS compared to [brand X] and because [brand X] can do it so should Canon? Or are you decrying that camera systems in general the lack of a feature you think should exist?
The latter would suggest it is a technological problem, not a Canon problem (which is how I read your OP).
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
Lolz.
I love ETTL on my camera. Works like a champ, never fails.
If you need advice how to learn to use those, there's tons of books, online forums, youtube videos etc. Probably more than one can consume in one lifetime.
So instead of ranting how bad it is (and pretty much giving out that it's you, not the flash), you could just ask nicely. Maybe even provide couple example pictures where it failed, tell us what were your settings and most of the time nice people here will give you advice and tips how to improve.
But if your message is "BARF BARF BARF CANON SUCKS BARF BARF BECAUSE I DON"T KNOW HOW TO USE FEATURE X BARF BARF SUCKS". Yea, don't expect much quality tips on the answers either.
Lolz.
I love ETTL on my camera. Works like a champ, never fails.
If you need advice how to learn to use those, there's tons of books, online forums, youtube videos etc. Probably more than one can consume in one lifetime.
So instead of ranting how bad it is (and pretty much giving out that it's you, not the flash), you could just ask nicely. Maybe even provide couple example pictures where it failed, tell us what were your settings and most of the time nice people here will give you advice and tips how to improve.
But if your message is "BARF BARF BARF CANON SUCKS BARF BARF BECAUSE I DON"T KNOW HOW TO USE FEATURE X BARF BARF SUCKS". Yea, don't expect much quality tips on the answers either.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
Auto flash mode works pretty well for me, the only issue I have is when I focus on a black dress or white wall and it tries to compensate for that by giving too much light or too little, but that is easy to resolve with flash exposure compensation. It's quite logical in that way. Average pictures work just fine, if you have something really dark, you dial down the flash, if you have something really bright, you dial up the flash. The camera makes a good guess at what it is supposed to do, but it can't differentiate between black fabric which has to remain black and
Remote flash with the optical system is more of a hit-and-miss for me, but I did make the mistake of using an EX-90 as master which has really limited range.
Auto flash mode works pretty well for me, the only issue I have is when I focus on a black dress or white wall and it tries to compensate for that by giving too much light or too little, but that is easy to resolve with flash exposure compensation. It's quite logical in that way. Average pictures work just fine, if you have something really dark, you dial down the flash, if you have something really bright, you dial up the flash. The camera makes a good guess at what it is supposed to do, but it can't differentiate between black fabric which has to remain black and
Remote flash with the optical system is more of a hit-and-miss for me, but I did make the mistake of using an EX-90 as master which has really limited range.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
+1. I tend to shoot in AV and I use EC and FEC to make adjustments as I go. If I'm doing a portrait session and the subject tends to move, I'll have the background flashes on manual and the subject flashes on ETTL.
Kristofgss said:
+1. I tend to shoot in AV and I use EC and FEC to make adjustments as I go. If I'm doing a portrait session and the subject tends to move, I'll have the background flashes on manual and the subject flashes on ETTL.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?
Obviously, he needed heavier nails. I find that railroad spikes never bend when using my cheap $5 Home Depot hammer. Getting them to go in straight is a different matter
I've never tried to drive one with my flash though. Generally, I find that understanding the ins and outs for the automatic flash settings, particularly when using TV and AV require some research, since they work differently from the fully automatic mode. I did not realize that at first, and had some strange results. I sometimes set the camera to manual, but generally, I get good results with the flash. However, its going to be a issue as I found last night when some of the subjects in a photo are wearing white and some black. I usually try to keep the whites from being blown out.
neuroanatomist said:I have a buddy who likes to build things, but couldn't drive nails in straight with his Stanley hammer. Knowing it was the tool's fault, he bought a $150 Estwing hammer. More bent nails. Being a smart guy, he immediately understood that with tools, you get what you pay for, so he called in favor from a friend at the Pentagon and borrowed one of their infamous $10,000 hammers. Damn it all, but that awesomely premium hammer still failed to drive nails in straight.
I'm sure rlarsen, being a bright guy like my buddy, will immediately grasp the moral of the story: there's no such thing as a good tool.
Obviously, he needed heavier nails. I find that railroad spikes never bend when using my cheap $5 Home Depot hammer. Getting them to go in straight is a different matter
I've never tried to drive one with my flash though. Generally, I find that understanding the ins and outs for the automatic flash settings, particularly when using TV and AV require some research, since they work differently from the fully automatic mode. I did not realize that at first, and had some strange results. I sometimes set the camera to manual, but generally, I get good results with the flash. However, its going to be a issue as I found last night when some of the subjects in a photo are wearing white and some black. I usually try to keep the whites from being blown out.
Upvote
0
