Re: ist d underexposure
Wouldn'y those glass bricks in the wall behind the people be highly reflective? That could reaaly fool a flash. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/05/03 07:28PM >>> ... and here is the link: http://www.xdstech.com/istd/underexposed.asp arnie - Original Message - From: "arnie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 6:50 PM Subject: Re: ist d underexposure > well the worst case of the underexposure was on a wide shot, but the > background was not white. i'm going to upload the pictures to my site. i'll > post the link when its up. > > arnie > > > - Original Message - > From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:46 AM > Subject: Re: ist d underexposure > > > > >I am using the ist D with the 360fgz, and all my indoor pictures are > > >terribley underexposed. anyone have a similar experience? or know of a > > >solution? > > > > > >quite disappointing to spend $1525 and get a broken unit (if thats what > it > > >is) > > > > > >arnie > > > > If white (or clear) walls were a big part of the picture (wide angle > > lens), it is normal and you need to compensate. I bet a photo of a > > person taken with a tele lens from the same distance would be fine, > > as skin and clothes would fill most of the frame. > > > > Andre > > --
Re: ist d underexposure
Any correlation with the "MZ-S oddness" thread, i.e., underexposure with 360 flash units? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ist d underexposure
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, John Francis wrote: > > > > I am using the ist D with the 360fgz, and all my indoor pictures are > > terribley underexposed. anyone have a similar experience? or know of a > > solution? > > Silly question, but: were you close enough for the 360 to provide enough > illumination at the selected ISO (200, by default) with your lens? > > I had absolutely no problems last weekend using the FTZ500, but that's > a slightly more powerful flash, and I was using my F50mm/f1.7 I have had this sort of problem with Nikon DSLRs and flash. It appears that the flash/camera combo is overly sensitive to highly reflective surfaces and either deliberately (to avoid blowing out highlights) or inadvertantly underexposes. I've had luck using the flash in the 45 degree bounce position with an omnibounce, and simply setting flash exposure compensation (I assume the Pentax combo will do that...) DJE
Re: ist d underexposure
the pictures were taken from at most 15 feet away arnie - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:49 AM Subject: Re: ist d underexposure > > > > I am using the ist D with the 360fgz, and all my indoor pictures are > > terribley underexposed. anyone have a similar experience? or know of a > > solution? > > Silly question, but: were you close enough for the 360 to provide enough > illumination at the selected ISO (200, by default) with your lens? > > I had absolutely no problems last weekend using the FTZ500, but that's > a slightly more powerful flash, and I was using my F50mm/f1.7
