Joe Hewes wrote: | There were other shots of people not wearing glasses that showed a lesser | degree of error, end examination under a 5x loupe detected the presence of a | bright highlight off a shiny surface, sometimes even off a shiny surface of | a mixing bowl, for instance. In the shots with lesser amount of exposure | error, the size of the glint was much smaller, or located much off-center, | than the shots of people wearing eyeglasses.
Even my EOS-3 + 380EX flash behaviour is less than satisfactory. I shot a roll of slides to test it last week. It was indoors, late in the evening, with flash (angled 45 degrees, StoFen diffuser) as the main light source. Modes were (1) Program, and (2) Manual, with A=f/5.6 and T=1/125-1/200s. Lenses used were the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 200/2.8. Exposure varied a lot, but mostly with the 24/2.8. Some shots with one or two small lights in the scene were heavily underexposed. Some (very few) were overexposed and the highlights were almost washed out. OTOH when I fill the frame with a face or some object with uniform colour and brightness range (when I use my 100/2.8 or 200/2.8) the flash exposure is perfect. With the 50/1.4 typical shots were of two people almost filling the frame, and some background clutter. Exposure was accurate. Any suggestions or comments? How do you manage exposure when shooting with a wide lens using flash as your main light source, when there are hot spots in the scene (one or two lights)? | the size of the glint was much smaller, or located much off-center, | than the shots of people wearing eyeglasses. Yes, in my shots, the lights were on the ceiling, not anywhere near the subjects, not even close to the centre of the frame. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
