Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-25-2008, 05:54 AM   #76
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 147
Here is a couple photos with my model on the same sofa. What I really don't like is the way the image seems to vignette out on the edges. I will take a shot with the built in flash tonight.


Last edited by mi2nc; 03-08-2008 at 11:53 AM.
02-25-2008, 07:55 AM   #77
Veteran Member
jshurak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 627
This is really interesting. I constantly overexpose my shots 1/2 to a full stop with my K10D. I thought it was just the light meter. Green button or not, the shots would come out underexposed. I lived with it because of other claims.

Recently my camera fell out of my bag and a little of the plastic by the pentax logo broke, so I sent it to get repaired and purchased a second, backup K10D body.

I've found that the new body is exposing just fine. I'm going to run some tests when I get the first body back. Might have to send it right back out.
02-25-2008, 06:09 PM   #78
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 147
sofa, builtin flash

Here are some shots with same sofa. my model is putting the kids to bed. Is it me or does the built in flash give better results? THe edges don't seem to vignette near as bad as the 350 flash. Also I noticed on the built in flash a couple red lights blinked just before I captured the shot. I assume this the mettering? Any thoughts/comments?

Last edited by mi2nc; 03-08-2008 at 11:53 AM.
02-25-2008, 07:57 PM   #79
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
The AF360's minimum autozoom focal length is 20 mm (page 25 of the AF360 manual). So its not unusual to get vignetting at 18 - 24 mm, as its near or below the limit. ( I think two of your shots are at that focal length). The built-in flash is better in this respect.

There's a wide-angle diffuser panel stowed in the top of the flash - use it for wide-angle shots - it helps.

Apart from that, a bit hard to see why your shots are underexposed.
I'm not sure how bright is the wall behind the sofa.
Some of the walls in my home are painted pure white, and I'll definitely get underexposed subjects if the shot is taken with the wall behind.
A quick and dirty way to get it bright again is to put +0.7 E/V to the flash exposure. I normally adjust the Flash exposure compensation, to avoid touching the main Exposure compensation setting.

02-25-2008, 08:48 PM   #80
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Posts: 71
Ok, people, it's time to admit that PTTL is a no-go.

PTTL has a huge problem with specular lighting. It will underexpose so that the specular light object doesn't overblow.
In real-life indoor flash shooting, there is always a specular light object - a glass, silverware, tin cans, leather sofa, a chandelier, a TV screen, women's jewelry, you name it - you just can't avoid it - it's all over the place.
A system that consistently sacrifices what we care most about in the name of some flashy spec piece of glass, to me is a no-go - unfit for purpose.

As with everybody else, I went through numerous spoiled party pictures, measurebated the hell out of PTTL, and come to the conclusion that it's simply not worth it.

That's why I use an external flash in "auto" mode. Occasionally, it will overexpose a foreground object, but I can dial flash compensation in these rare cases. Sunpak 383 anyone?

To be completely fair, I have to mention that the built-in flash is somehow better with exposure than an external PTTL flash.
02-25-2008, 09:16 PM   #81
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
QuoteOriginally posted by stanjo Quote
Ok, people, it's time to admit that PTTL is a no-go.

PTTL has a huge problem with specular lighting. It will underexpose so that the specular light object doesn't overblow.
In real-life indoor flash shooting, there is always a specular light object - a glass, silverware, tin cans, leather sofa, a chandelier, a TV screen, women's jewelry, you name it - you just can't avoid it - it's all over the place.
A system that consistently sacrifices what we care most about in the name of some flashy spec piece of glass, to me is a no-go - unfit for purpose.
I completely disagree with these very broad generalizations. I have nothing but praise for the P-TTL on both the 360 fgz and the built-in flash. Contrary to the experience of these posters, I do not find that P-TTL underexposes, nor have I seen any problems with specular light objects. The only time I have ever had an underexposed picture with my k10d and flash (either one) is when I mistakenly bounce the flash beyond the capability for my aperture and ISO setting.
02-25-2008, 09:42 PM   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
QuoteOriginally posted by stanjo Quote
As with everybody else, I went through numerous spoiled party pictures, measurebated the hell out of PTTL, and come to the conclusion that it's simply not worth it.

That's why I use an external flash in "auto" mode. Occasionally, it will overexpose a foreground object, but I can dial flash compensation in these rare cases. Sunpak 383 anyone?
Umm...I do get unexpected throw-away shots, but I don't think its that bad.

I do a lot of toddler shots, and mainly shoot with P-TTL because toddlers don't wait around long enough for you to fiddle with the flash. Its just switch the flash on - and take the shot.

Shot below with AF360, no Flash exposure compensation. The Exif data should still be there.

02-25-2008, 09:59 PM   #83
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
That is a nice flash shot kitty and it doesn't look like a "flash shot." (strong shadows, washed out facial tones, etc.) I would also think it was a challenging shot for the meter with the different reflective surfaces.

02-25-2008, 10:15 PM   #84
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Posts: 71
Actually, there is no specular light in this shot. The brightest part is the piece of white skirt.
If would have been different if there were a glass on the table, a foil pack of juice or something flashy. In my book, this is one of the "lucky" pictures with PTTL.

I find auto flash very easy to handle - just match ISO and f-stop, which I usually put to Av f5.6/ISO400 for general purpose flash photography.

With AF360, the body may even communicate the ISO and f-stop automatically. If that's the case, then switching the AF360 to auto from PTTL effectively only changes the light sensor - use the flash metering sensor instead of the camera's.
Can someone confirm this?
02-25-2008, 10:15 PM   #85
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 377
QuoteOriginally posted by stanjo Quote
Ok, people, it's time to admit that PTTL is a no-go.

PTTL has a huge problem with specular lighting. It will underexpose so that the specular light object doesn't overblow.
In real-life indoor flash shooting, there is always a specular light object - a glass, silverware, tin cans, leather sofa, a chandelier, a TV screen, women's jewelry, you name it - you just can't avoid it - it's all over the place.
A system that consistently sacrifices what we care most about in the name of some flashy spec piece of glass, to me is a no-go - unfit for purpose.

As with everybody else, I went through numerous spoiled party pictures, measurebated the hell out of PTTL, and come to the conclusion that it's simply not worth it.

That's why I use an external flash in "auto" mode. Occasionally, it will overexpose a foreground object, but I can dial flash compensation in these rare cases. Sunpak 383 anyone?

To be completely fair, I have to mention that the built-in flash is somehow better with exposure than an external PTTL flash.
That's very very easy to avoid. Just use bounce flash, as you should be doing indoors, or a head-mounted diffuser. Harsh lighting looks like crap anyway!
02-26-2008, 05:57 PM   #86
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 147
I used the diffuser as suggested above. Not a big difference. the zoom shot is still the best. The wide shot has much vignetting. I am going to try to learn more about the camera and try again.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k10d, photography, pics, priority, underexpose
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Underexposed pics with new Sigma EF 530 DG Super Flash. What I'm I doing wrong? ismaelg Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 8 02-09-2011 01:46 PM
Underexposed photos from my K-x richardm Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 25 07-30-2010 10:58 AM
K10D and 540 - underexposed and always shoots at 1/30 sec KettererE Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 4 12-25-2009 10:35 PM
Underexposed without eye to viewfinder? WackySnapper Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 01-19-2009 01:07 AM
Dramatic or underexposed? Fox Three Post Your Photos! 10 12-06-2006 11:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top