rlarsen said:Switching to manual mode and working likes it's 1977 is no answer.
rlarsen said:It takes all the fun out of photography and replaces it with stress.
zim said:...I also find having the camera in Manual when flash in ETTL II mode more controllable than any auto mode...
unfocused said:zim said:...I also find having the camera in Manual when flash in ETTL II mode more controllable than any auto mode...
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:A friend at Canon tells me the lens distance to subject info is not activitated when the flash is positioned in bounce mode.
rlarsen said:Many of the pros I know have given up on ttl and use manual power control. I'm not sure if they share my inability to use the tools of the trade and learn over time. I know a couple photographers who shoot parties published in Vanity Fair magazine. They share my lack of skill and problem solving and use manual power and try to shoot all their subjects at the same distance. Most recently I've been using manual settings on my camera and not AV mode.
Kristofgss said: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.
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.