sb-15 always with ttl always blinks improper exposure

[denada]

well i used m mode, not auto. and she got nakey. so really hoping that worked. moment was a little intense by the time you replied, but i appreciate it and will use it going forward.

 

[Designer]

.. she got nakey.

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[denada]

one week develop time. though the lighting is completely #%^*&$ for all i know.

 

[jcdeboever]

I have always used it in either A mode, never manual. I totally missed this thread but still would not have known the answer because I never encountered that issue. I think Derrel nailed it as always. What a blessing he is on this forum.

 

[denada]

i see should not have used m. the photos are going to be overexposed. oh well. derrell to the rescue, but at that point i was very distracted and didn't make good use of the advice. next time.

going to shoot a test roll messing with all modes so i don't have this issue next time.

 

[Derrel]

I really think that the older AUTO-mode flash is a great way to shoot flash shots, either with film, or with digital, since the old-tech system relies on the shooter to set the flash's ISO, and with that keyed in, the A-1 and A-2 modes have a "factory-determined" f/stop against which to gauge the flash fire-and-return to the phhotcell on the flash unit. This factory-determined baseline can be used to huge advantage when you need a different exposure, either more, or less exposure than the system believes is correct.

For example, with the SB-15 without any wide-angle diffuser panel, the Auto-2 flash mode is based on the idea that at ISO 100, the correct f/stop is f/4.0, with a range from 2.0 to 20 feet. So,based on that, it follows that at ISO 200, the Auto-2 f/stop would be adjusted down one stop, to f/5.6.

At ISO 400,the AUTO-2 f/stop value would be set by stopping down yet another f/stop value, to f/8, and we'd get good flash exposures at that smaller f/stop opening.

With a NON-connected, non-communicating or "dumb" AUTO-flash setup, we can introduce deliberate over- or deliberate under-exposure, by simply altering the settings to suit our own purposes! This is why AUTO-flash modes are more easily controlled than are TTL flash control modes. In TTL, the system constantly,constantly tries to "out-think-the-photog", and it can be a major hassle to make a dead-simple change! In TTL mode, if you click the lens down a stop, the TTL system wants to ADD more flash, so you need to use Flash Compensation to effect an exposure change.

With a digitial SLR, and an Old School flash like the SB-15 set in AUTO-1 or AUTO-2 mode, you can "lie to the flash" unit by setting a different f/stop, or a different ISO on the flash unit, OR on the camera, or a little of both, then shoot a shot, check the Histogram, and make any needed refinements to the settings of eithet the camera, or to the flash--all in less time than it took me to write that sentence.

It really comes doew to the basic concept that AUTO-flash was, and still is, a great system! TTL is in many ways, ovber-rated, and more-complicated than AUTO-flash regulation was.

 

[denada]

this is all good to know. how ruined you think these shots will be? i was using trix400 on m with the diffuser at a variety of aperatures. the shots were all close up.

i figured i'd at least have my xa shots. turns out i forgot to load it with film. we were having a good time.

i do have some impossible project polaroids that did turn out fine, so there's evidence. and a couple of her on that digital camera. but i'm pretty bummed both about the empty xa and the flash misuse. the trix shots are what i really want. she was into it for that camera.

what about having the film pulled when i develop?

yes, using the guide number formula, if i could have it pulled to like 100 iso the flash level would likely be much more appropriate. what's pulled trix like? is trix alright overexposed?

 

[Derrel]

this is all good to know. how ruined you think these shots will be? i was using trix400 on m with the diffuser at a variety of aperatures. the shots were all close up.

i figured i'd at least have my xa shots. turns out i forgot to load it with film. we were having a good time.

i do have some impossible project polaroids that did turn out fine, so there's evidence. and a couple of her on that digital camera. but i'm pretty bummed both about the empty xa and the flash misuse. the trix shots are what i really want. she was into it for that camera.

what about having the film pulled when i develop?

It's very difficult to know how the exposures will be...depends on how far the flash and camera was from the subject, and at what f/stop the lens was at when the shots were made. Tri-X is nominally 400 ISO; if you shot at smaller apertures and in the 8-15 foot range, you might have some decent exposures. Tri-X can handle over-exposure in a pretty good way, and can have some lovely highlight tones when over-exposed. But again...depends on how close the flash was, and the f/stop in use, and whether the flash was bounced up and off of something, or bounced off of a wall, etc.. Having used the diffuser panel is proibably a positive thing in this instance.

If you think the overall exposure was too stroing, then yeah, maybe ask for pull-processsing. Meaning if the flash was just being used as an accent or a fill light, at say f/3.5 at 1/20 second indoors....

But if the flash was like the MAIN source of light, at say f/8 at 1/125 second indoors, then I would most likely NOT go for pull processing.

What a shame about the unloaded XA...oh well, the images will live in the mind. The "what if..." types of shots!

 

[compur]

Tri-X is pretty flexible on exposure. The shots may turn out better than you think.

 

[Derrel]

Tri-X is pretty flexible on exposure. The shots may turn out better than you think.

That is sooooo true! I have some negatives from the early 1980's that were wayyyyy over-exposed Tri-X, with exposure times in the 2 min 30 seconds to 3:00 enlargerment exposure times; very DENSE,dark negs...but the pictures are lovely! Big, honking grain, and ethereal highest-highlight whites! If these photos are glamorous or boudoir-ish, a serious dose of over-exposure on Tri-X might yield some really neat images!!!

 

[denada]

i appreciate the guidance as always, derrel. going to have them developed normal and hope for the best. sounds like printing will likely be possible even if they don't work so well for scanning.

learning artificial lighting, at least some basics, is now high on my to-do list.

 

[denada]

and wow, just re-read the thread and i apologize, compur and Designer. i appreciate very much you trying to help, even though i have an intoxicated post that made it sound otherwise. no excuse, but that post can be read in two very different tones. while it doesn't seem like either of you took it in the worse, i see someone else did and get how. but that was me simultaneously laughing and yelling like when you stub your toe. was having a damn good night.

 

[Derrel]

i appreciate the guidance as always, derrel. going to have them developed normal and hope for the best. sounds like printing will likely be possible even if they don't work so well for scanning.

learning artificial lighting, at least some basics, is now high on my to-do list.

I'd hope for the best. Tri-X has grreat tonality, and I love its large,bold grtain pattern, especially when over-exposed. Who knows...one of my all-time favorite shots on Tri-X is almost black it is so,so,sooo over-exposed!

 

[denada]

not pulling was the right call. film came out completely fine. the roll that i was using the ttl setting with came out slightly overexposed.

if you can see the nsfw sub-forum: Error | Photography Forum

 

[denada]

hi. after reading the manual and trying test shots, the ttl feature of this flash still won't work. i bought another to make sure i don't have a defective until. all contacts have been cleaned. new batteries. tested with multiple nikkor ai-s lenses.

i see derrel prefers auto for this flash. i bought it for ttl. did functional ttl tech not exist in the time of the sb-15 and fa and this is a gimmick that never worked? or is there something i am missing?

unless the subject is 5 feet away or less, it blinks to indicate under exposure even if i'm shooting well within in the distance/aperture guides. when it blinks, that means full power was used. and those photos come back over exposed, so it's not like the flash is actually under exposing as the blinking light claims.

any ideas what's wrong? i'd like to to be able to chose between more than the two aperatures the a1/a2 setting offers. thanks!