Flash and ISO

[o hey tyler]

Not the entire thing was underexposed. Just a few where they were extremely close to me...

Not trying to be rude here... But what part of the photo isn't underexposed? Her dress?

 

[Flash Harry]

Take this onboard, if a bright shiny object fills the frame, regardless whether you use flash or not the outcome will be underexposed, compensate. H

 

[MohaimenK]

Not the entire thing was underexposed. Just a few where they were extremely close to me...

Not trying to be rude here... But what part of the photo isn't underexposed? Her dress?

The whole thing is underexposed. Her dress is reflective so the flash bounces of off it on ETTL mode and like Big Mike said, it tells itself to shoot lower. Another problem was that I was the 2nd shooter. Had I been the first, my ideal spot would be to stand where they would stand and use my 70-200 at 2.8 but I couldn't do that because thats where the first shooter was standing.

....alas, this is my 2nd wedding, not master at it yet. With lots of practice it'll happen. Thats why I still offer free weddings. Sure some compensate me as "tip" but until I know I'm taking exceptional photos, I won't be charging them.

Will find out next weekend as I have my 3rd wedding. Although it would be outdoor wedding so hopefully lighting will play in my favor :thumbup:

 

[MohaimenK]

Also not PPed, but this was at f4 but exposure was just fine. But I was also really far from them. Shot at 200mm at ISO 2000 with flash

 

[Big Mike]

I'm not sure why that one would be so underexposed, in terms of flash anyway. I don't think that dress would cause too much of a problem, especially as it's such a small part of the frame.

I'm wondering why you choose to use 1/200 as your shutter speed for that shot though. As that is the main reason that your background is underexposed.

 

[MohaimenK]

Yeah Mike, I am not sure, I can't remember. Still learning....2nd wedding after all. I tell you, when you're new and ur doing wedding, seems like you forget everything since things are happening so quickly.

I am not at home and working through logmein sux but yeah raised the exposure. Did that from the original JPEG but I'm sure it'll be better with the RAW file when I do it at home

 

[MohaimenK]

Also I've realized photobucket underexposes images. They look way more underexposed and far less contrast from the original image

 

[Derrel]

Here's one of the bridesmade passing by. Of course I haven't done any PP or any noise reduction or anything. But straight out of the camera:

Looks like a beautiful exposure for the stained glass window panes in the upper right hand corner, and the ceiling lights are rendered quite beautifully.
But, uh, the flash part of the exposure looks pretty much "under". I dunno...how dark was this place? It looks like a nightclub in this shot.

 

[Big Mike]

I see so many people blaming Photobucket and other sites for ruining their images and I call BS. If you reisze your images properly and have them in the right color space, they should look fine...and if they don't, then find a better way to host your images.

 

[MohaimenK]

Looks like a beautiful exposure for the stained glass window panes in the upper right hand corner, and the ceiling lights are rendered quite beautifully.
But, uh, the flash part of the exposure looks pretty much "under". I dunno...how dark was this place? It looks like a nightclub in this shot.

It was really dark, even the lights up top did nothing to be honest. Felt like they were 40 watts bulbs LOL

 

[MohaimenK]

I see so many people blaming Photobucket and other sites for ruining their images and I call BS. If you reisze your images properly and have them in the right color space, they should look fine...and if they don't, then find a better way to host your images.

Big Mike, if you see so many people are blaming photobucket, then obviously it's photobucket that's f'in up the image. I don't think a bunch of us got together to make up a conspiracy against them. I still continue to use them because they give 1gb free space vs 100mb on Flickr. Anyway get a photobucket account, upload your image, look at the original on your computer and then look at the uploaded one on PB then get back to me. I didn't realize this until a couple weeks ago and thought a lof ot my images were just underexposed when I saw them here vs my comp screen. Anyway, regardless, there's a bit of underexposing going on during the upload, but it's not the point with first image. That's jsut way underexposed.

 

[Big Mike]

It was really dark, even the lights up top did nothing to be honest. Felt like they were 40 watts bulbs LOL

The point is that your exposure looks like it was based on those light. If your exposure was 'correct' for your subject, then those lights would be completely blown out bright.

 

[MohaimenK]

It was really dark, even the lights up top did nothing to be honest. Felt like they were 40 watts bulbs LOL

The point is that your exposure looks like it was based on those light. If your exposure was 'correct' for your subject, then those lights would be completely blown out bright.

Yes but the flash would have worked just fine if the dress wasn't as shiney. So my question is, how do I work with flash on a shiney dress like this?? I mean the ISO was at 4000 which is why the lighting and the windows came out correct. I thought the flash would take care of the bridesmade

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I see so many people blaming Photobucket and other sites for ruining their images and I call BS. If you reisze your images properly and have them in the right color space, they should look fine...and if they don't, then find a better way to host your images.

Big Mike, if you see so many people are blaming photobucket, then obviously it's photobucket that's f'in up the image.

Why would a site that is trying to SELL you hosting space purposefully **** up your images? Yes, free photobucket accounts compress your images, not "underexpose them". People blame Flickr for messing up their colors too, it is documented that Flickr only adds a slight sharpening pass, but that's it. Most peoples problems come from not understanding colorspaces. Could that be your case?

 

[MohaimenK]

Why would a site that is trying to SELL you hosting space purposefully **** up your images? Yes, free photobucket accounts compress your images, not "underexpose them". People blame Flickr for messing up their colors too, it is documented that Flickr only adds a slight sharpening pass, but that's it. Most peoples problems come from not understanding colorspaces. Could that be your case?

I noticed it last week when I posted the picture of me eating popcorn. It was totally washed out compared to the original.....

It's kindda like FB thing, where it messes up totally while it tries to compress the images. With FB I learned the trick to knock down the PPI under 100 and change image size to 6x4 or 4x6 and that instantly fixed a lot of the issues there.

I haven't found the correct settings for Photobucket yet but haven't really looked into it yet.

Now to prove my point bitter, if you want to give me your email addy, I'll send you the pic of me eating popcorn and you can see the original vs what was posted on the forum.