G2 and 420ex

[NickD]

To say that I am disapointed in the above combination for flash photography would be a severe understatement. This camera simply cannot take photos with a flash. Every photo I have taken with the 420ex ( over 100) have all come out looking either pale yellow or are covered in an amber tint. This flash is suppose to have a range of over 40 metres yet subject photographed at less than 4 metres appear orange and pale.

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange. I cannot figure this out and am at my wits end.

Have tried all combinations ISO 50 and 100 , toggled through all the white balance settings (incidentally, the flash AWB is the worst ) and use direct and ceiling bounce.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500 AUD I have yet to see one.

Nick

 

[r cataldo]

I have used my 420ex on my G1 and G2, I have shot several weddings with it, I have taken many indoor and outdoor shots with it, and I can say that my experiences are very positive. I have no problems controlling the flash in any situation. I do use a Stofen white filter for 80% of the work.

You asked for some examples.... one quick example on an indoor shot that has not yet been altered

http://www.pbase.com/image/426604/medium

Sorry to hear about the problems, but I think the G2 and 420ex combination is one of the best I have ever found.

To say that I am disapointed in the above combination for flash
photography would be a severe understatement. This camera simply
cannot take photos with a flash. Every photo I have taken with the
420ex ( over 100) have all come out looking either pale yellow or
are covered in an amber tint. This flash is suppose to have a range
of over 40 metres yet subject photographed at less than 4 metres
appear orange and pale.

 

[Mike K]

With the color casts you describe it sounds as if you have a white balance problem. Are you shooting in a room with incandecent light? the yellow or amber would suggest that your WB is off with incandescent. you can switch the WB to incandescent or flash, depending upon how close you are. Remember that bounce mode works far better for portraits at closer to moderate distances. Only point the flash directly at people when they are further away, as the shadows will be much harsher. Of course the real solution for WB is by shooting RAW. Try this first as you can play with the WB after the fact and you will always have a salvagable image. Try all the different WB settings during RAW conversion then try the picker, click on the eyedropper then click on any non-colored pixel, white, gray or black and keep trying until you get colors you like. Easy.

There have been many, many posters who have been very happy campers with the 420ex, if its not working for you, you are plrobably doing something wrong.
Regards, Mike K

To say that I am disapointed in the above combination for flash
photography would be a severe understatement. This camera simply
cannot take photos with a flash. Every photo I have taken with the
420ex ( over 100) have all come out looking either pale yellow or
are covered in an amber tint. This flash is suppose to have a range
of over 40 metres yet subject photographed at less than 4 metres
appear orange and pale.

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD
they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as
they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange.
I cannot figure this out and am at my wits end.

Have tried all combinations ISO 50 and 100 , toggled through all
the white balance settings (incidentally, the flash AWB is the
worst ) and use direct and ceiling bounce.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

Nick

 

[NickD]

Mike,

Thanks for your reply, I will certainly try the options that you have mentioned, however, shouldn't I expect to get an "acceptable" shot right out of the camera, why would it be nessesary to force RAW mode and then spend time later on in post processing, something just doesn't sound right about all this. I certainly hope that the fault is in the way I am doing things cause I am not looking forward to dealing with Canon service reps.

Thanks
Nick

To say that I am disapointed in the above combination for flash
photography would be a severe understatement. This camera simply
cannot take photos with a flash. Every photo I have taken with the
420ex ( over 100) have all come out looking either pale yellow or
are covered in an amber tint. This flash is suppose to have a range
of over 40 metres yet subject photographed at less than 4 metres
appear orange and pale.

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD
they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as
they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange.
I cannot figure this out and am at my wits end.

Have tried all combinations ISO 50 and 100 , toggled through all
the white balance settings (incidentally, the flash AWB is the
worst ) and use direct and ceiling bounce.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

Nick

 

[Mike K]

Using RAW is a good experiment as you can try every WB in the book with only one shot! I fear you were using Auto, I notice you didn't specify in your origninal post. At least use P mode, you will have to turn on the flash manually. Are you adamant about auto WB too? thats why you need to use P mode, Auto mode doesn't allow you to specify anything.

The problems you describe you will find with any digicam and will vary with lighting conditions. thats why all digicams have some manual WB settings, because you need them! I think once you figure out what WB settings you need in a given situation you will be happy. Shoot bounce mode (off the celing), you will like it.

Alternatively color casts can be dealt with in Photoshop that came with your camera. Go to the retouching forum and search for a description of how to use the Levels commands. Here is one tutorial, read about Levels;
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/instant_photoshop.htm

using Levels on the R, G and B channels separately adjusts mid tone color, contrast and brightness all at once.

The reason most G-1/2 owners use RAW is for maximum image quality, but the ability to alter WB, sharpness, contrast and saturation of shots after the fact is really helpful too (and its done at the 10 bit level). With programs like Breezebrowser conversion can be done batchwise if the setting for all your pics are to be the same.
Mike K

Mike,

Thanks for your reply, I will certainly try the options that you
have mentioned, however, shouldn't I expect to get an "acceptable"
shot right out of the camera, why would it be nessesary to force
RAW mode and then spend time later on in post processing, something
just doesn't sound right about all this. I certainly hope that the
fault is in the way I am doing things cause I am not looking
forward to dealing with Canon service reps.

Thanks
Nick

 

[Martin Eager56124]

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD
they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as
they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange.

Something doesn't sound right, everyone I've seen posts by here who has a 420ex is usually raving about how good it is.

This does sound like a white balance problem and could be a faulty camera if you have been experimenting with white balance and are still getting problems.

I had exactly this problem happen with my old G1 (I now have a G2), where the white balance in the final image was totally different to the white balance displayed on the LCD at the time of taking the shot and in the preview on the LCD after taking the shot. In fact, perhaps not coincidentally, with my G1 all of the shots with messed up white balance came out totally orange. And we're talking ORANGE, not the yellow tinge you get with incandescent lighting. What's more, consecutive shots under exactly the same lighting often came out different, some orange, some normal and correct. This problem was one of the reasons I traded in my G1 for a G2 and the guy at the store insisted I had a defective G1. I wasn't convinced at the timel, but maybe he was right and it's possible your G2 has a similar problem.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

Bryan Siverly takes some excellent shots with his G2 and 420ex combo and the colours look totally spot on. See here:

http://www.pbase.com/bsiverly/halloween

I would suggest getting your G2 checked out, it sounds defective.

Cheers
Martin
http://photos.runic.com

 

[OldDigiman]

It sounds like something's wrong with your gear -- the first thing I'd do is go to photo shop and try out a different EX420 in the store, that way you'll know if the the problem is in the camera or in the flash.

Alan

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD
they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as
they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange.

Something doesn't sound right, everyone I've seen posts by here who
has a 420ex is usually raving about how good it is.

This does sound like a white balance problem and could be a faulty
camera if you have been experimenting with white balance and are
still getting problems.

I had exactly this problem happen with my old G1 (I now have a G2),
where the white balance in the final image was totally different to
the white balance displayed on the LCD at the time of taking the
shot and in the preview on the LCD after taking the shot. In fact,
perhaps not coincidentally, with my G1 all of the shots with messed
up white balance came out totally orange. And we're talking ORANGE,
not the yellow tinge you get with incandescent lighting. What's
more, consecutive shots under exactly the same lighting often came
out different, some orange, some normal and correct. This problem
was one of the reasons I traded in my G1 for a G2 and the guy at
the store insisted I had a defective G1. I wasn't convinced at the
timel, but maybe he was right and it's possible your G2 has a
similar problem.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

Bryan Siverly takes some excellent shots with his G2 and 420ex
combo and the colours look totally spot on. See here:

http://www.pbase.com/bsiverly/halloween

I would suggest getting your G2 checked out, it sounds defective.

Cheers
Martin
http://photos.runic.com

 

[NickD]

Hi Mike,

Most of the shots I took were in 'P' mode although I did also try some in 'auto', not too much difference. Something you mentioned in this message was "At least use P mode. you will have to turn on the flash manually" what does turn on the flash manually mean? I am working on the assumption that the camera automatically adjusts the flash settings in P mode, if I am wrong then this could be the answer.

Can you elaborate a little more.

Thanks
Nick

The reason most G-1/2 owners use RAW is for maximum image quality,
but the ability to alter WB, sharpness, contrast and saturation of
shots after the fact is really helpful too (and its done at the 10
bit level). With programs like Breezebrowser conversion can be
done batchwise if the setting for all your pics are to be the same.
Mike K

Mike,

Thanks for your reply, I will certainly try the options that you
have mentioned, however, shouldn't I expect to get an "acceptable"
shot right out of the camera, why would it be nessesary to force
RAW mode and then spend time later on in post processing, something
just doesn't sound right about all this. I certainly hope that the
fault is in the way I am doing things cause I am not looking
forward to dealing with Canon service reps.

Thanks
Nick

 

[Dan T]

I don't know enough to offer a solution but there must be something wrong. I just got a 420EX for my G2 a couple of weeks ago and I am very pleased with the results...especially pictures of people. There certainly is no yellow/amber tint...the colors are natural and pure. I hope you can figure it out.

 

[Mike Collier]

To say that I am disapointed in the above combination for flash
photography would be a severe understatement. This camera simply
cannot take photos with a flash. Every photo I have taken with the
420ex ( over 100) have all come out looking either pale yellow or
are covered in an amber tint. This flash is suppose to have a range
of over 40 metres yet subject photographed at less than 4 metres
appear orange and pale.

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD
they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as
they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange.
I cannot figure this out and am at my wits end.

Have tried all combinations ISO 50 and 100 , toggled through all
the white balance settings (incidentally, the flash AWB is the
worst ) and use direct and ceiling bounce.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

Nick

I recently purchased a 420EX for my G2. I discovered almost immediately that flash pictures were underexposed and had an orange tint. Unsure as to the fault I went into my local dealer to try another flash/camera to find the problem.

The problem was a faulty flash.

It could be worth trying another unit in a shop to determine where the fault lies.

Mike

 

[Mike K]

in the full Auto mode the camera turns on the flash by itself, the phototgrapher has no choice in the matter! In the P mode you have to press the flash button to turn it on (and off). if you look at the manual you will notice that in full auto mode you cannot use flash compensation, exposure compensation, RAW or a host of other adjustment features. In all settings the flash intensity is controlled by the camera (as long as you are using the ETTL compatible 420EX), but you can override this choice with flash compensation.

Hi Mike,

Most of the shots I took were in 'P' mode although I did also try
some in 'auto', not too much difference. Something you mentioned in
this message was "At least use P mode. you will have to turn on the
flash manually" what does turn on the flash manually mean? I am
working on the assumption that the camera automatically adjusts the
flash settings in P mode, if I am wrong then this could be the
answer.

Can you elaborate a little more.

Thanks
Nick

 

[Todd Walker]

Nick,

All of the pictures in this gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/twalker294/halloween_2001

were taken with my Pro90 and 420EX. If your shots don't look at least as good, I suggest trying another flash unit as your 420 may be defective.

Todd

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

 

[JimmieD]

If the images look fine on the camera's monitor, how could the camera or flash be to blame? It sounds like to me that in the writing to the PC hard drive, a profiles adjustment is being made.

If the photos are that far off, then you should be able to see so on the camera playback.
JimmieD

To say that I am disapointed in the above combination for flash
photography would be a severe understatement. This camera simply
cannot take photos with a flash. Every photo I have taken with the
420ex ( over 100) have all come out looking either pale yellow or
are covered in an amber tint. This flash is suppose to have a range
of over 40 metres yet subject photographed at less than 4 metres
appear orange and pale.

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD
they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as
they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange.
I cannot figure this out and am at my wits end.

Have tried all combinations ISO 50 and 100 , toggled through all
the white balance settings (incidentally, the flash AWB is the
worst ) and use direct and ceiling bounce.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

Nick

 

[NickD]

What could cause such a profile adjustment, does Zoombrowser have a setting for this?. My Sony G400 monitor uses a color profile to display accurate colors through the windows control panel, if this was at fault all images would suffer the same problems. This does not seem to be the case. I did some more testing last night with somewaht better results than I indicated on my first post. I am of two minds as to whether to go back to the store for a replacement. I will continue to test it over the next couple of days.

Nick

If the photos are that far off, then you should be able to see so
on the camera playback.
JimmieD

To say that I am disapointed in the above combination for flash
photography would be a severe understatement. This camera simply
cannot take photos with a flash. Every photo I have taken with the
420ex ( over 100) have all come out looking either pale yellow or
are covered in an amber tint. This flash is suppose to have a range
of over 40 metres yet subject photographed at less than 4 metres
appear orange and pale.

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD
they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as
they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange.
I cannot figure this out and am at my wits end.

Have tried all combinations ISO 50 and 100 , toggled through all
the white balance settings (incidentally, the flash AWB is the
worst ) and use direct and ceiling bounce.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

Nick

 

[NickD]

Hi Todd

With reference to image IMG_2291Resized.jpg on your web site, I notice that the flash has illuminated all the way to the back of the house, this appears to be a sizeable distance.

1) Did you use any special settings to acheive this?
2) Is this typical of the 420EX?
3)What mode was the camera in? ie AUTO, P ,M etc
4) Any flalsh exposure compensation?

I have noticed that when using flash photography the results are better when there is a subject is in close proximity to the camera, ie a portrait. When taking a shot of a wide open space ie in an auditorium the photos appear to be underexposed, this is what led me to as the above question, in your case the flash has covered a great distance. This is the type of effect I expect from a flash as powerful as the 420ex. At the end of the day it could be that my unit is faulty.

As an aside to the above, your flash photos are the sharpest and most focused I have seen, my G2 is not as sharp as this, I will keep testing until I get it right.

Thanks
Nick

All of the pictures in this gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/twalker294/halloween_2001

were taken with my Pro90 and 420EX. If your shots don't look at
least as good, I suggest trying another flash unit as your 420 may
be defective.

Todd

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

 

[Todd Walker]

Hi Todd

With reference to image IMG_2291Resized.jpg on your web site, I
notice that the flash has illuminated all the way to the back of
the house, this appears to be a sizeable distance.

1) Did you use any special settings to acheive this?

Not at all. According to the EXIF, here are the pertinent settings:

ISO: 50
Shutter: 1/60
Aperture: f/2.8
EV bias: 0
Program mode
Metering: Ctr Weight Av
WB: Flash

I used the flash in the straight on position with no diffuser.

2) Is this typical of the 420EX?

I have found that it is. I was standing on the street when I took that picture and the door of the house was probably 30-40 feet away.

3)What mode was the camera in? ie AUTO, P ,M etc

P mode.

4) Any flalsh exposure compensation?

No.

I have noticed that when using flash photography the results are
better when there is a subject is in close proximity to the camera,
ie a portrait. When taking a shot of a wide open space ie in an
auditorium the photos appear to be underexposed, this is what led
me to as the above question, in your case the flash has covered a
great distance. This is the type of effect I expect from a flash as
powerful as the 420ex. At the end of the day it could be that my
unit is faulty.

It very well might be. The power of the 420 really has amazed me, especially on those Halloween pictures that you were looking at.

As an aside to the above, your flash photos are the sharpest and
most focused I have seen, my G2 is not as sharp as this, I will
keep testing until I get it right.

Thanks for the comments. I keep the camera set at high saturation, neutral sharpening, and low contrast. I have a Photoshop action that converts the images to 1024x768 and sharpens them using the standard "dumb" sharpen filter -- no unsharp mask or anything else -- and I am very pleased with the results.

Todd

 

[Scr]

Try adjusting flash output +2/3 or +1, also use raw format to setting white balance and use Av mode F4.0 or F.4.5. I generally do this to get the very good conditions of color, exposure and depth of field in indoor shots.

 

[NickD]

Hi Todd

Just for comparison check out the following flash shots. This one was taken indoors, note the distinct amber cast. (ceiling bounce)



EXIF for inside shot

Shooting Mode
Program AE
Tv (Shutter Speed)
1/60
Av (Aperture Value)
2.2
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
50
Flash
On
Flash Type
External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation
0
White Balance
Tungsten

now take a look at this outside shot, ignore the focus it was taken in PITCH BLACK. Look at the illumination. I think that the evaluation algorithm may be a bit too conservative and hence is not exposing the internal shot so good, I have noticed that by bumping up the flash exposure I can eliminate the amber effect.

(direct flash)



Shooting Mode
Program AE
Tv (Shutter Speed)
1/60
Av (Aperture Value)
2.0
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
50
Flash
On
Flash Type
External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation
0
White Balance
Flash

What do you think of these shots?

Nick

 

[NickD]

Well after days of testing , posting and worrying, I finally decided to do a back-to-back test. I took three shots with the G2 internal flash and identical three shots with my 420ex. I almost fell over when I made the comparison, the differences were obvious. I immediately bundled all my gear together and went back to my photo retailer. I explained the situation and being skeptical they asked me to perform the same test in store with a new 420ex he provided. As soon as we bought the images up on the screen the salesman agreed that there WAS in fact a problem with my original unit. The store was very understanding of the problem and apologised. I now have a replacement unit and am finally relieved.

Thanks to all contributors

Nick

To say that I am disapointed in the above combination for flash
photography would be a severe understatement. This camera simply
cannot take photos with a flash. Every photo I have taken with the
420ex ( over 100) have all come out looking either pale yellow or
are covered in an amber tint. This flash is suppose to have a range
of over 40 metres yet subject photographed at less than 4 metres
appear orange and pale.

I noticed that when the images are previewed on the cameras LCD
they appear near perfect, vivid and VERY BRIGHT, however as soon as
they are downloaded to my Pc using Zoombrowser they are all orange.
I cannot figure this out and am at my wits end.

Have tried all combinations ISO 50 and 100 , toggled through all
the white balance settings (incidentally, the flash AWB is the
worst ) and use direct and ceiling bounce.

I would be interested in seeing a sample of someones 420ex picture
that they consider to be "good" as after having spent almost $3500
AUD I have yet to see one.

Nick

 

[Ian Leonard]

Nick, Just as an aside,
i notice that both the shots you posted were at f/2 or f/2.2

I was dissapointed with the flash performance with my 550EX & tried all sorts. The solution which works for me is to place the camera in AV mode and choose an aperture which would underexpose the available (tungsten = red) light. i.e f/5.6 or f/8. The camera should in theory give a long exposure to compensate for the smaller apeture, BUT IT DOSENT, it sticks to 1/60 of a sec & the flash gives correct exposure.

It works for me.

Ian.

Well after days of testing , posting and worrying, I finally
decided to do a back-to-back test. I took three shots with the G2
internal flash and identical three shots with my 420ex. I almost
fell over when I made the comparison, the differences were obvious.
I immediately bundled all my gear together and went back to my
photo retailer. I explained the situation and being skeptical they
asked me to perform the same test in store with a new 420ex he
provided. As soon as we bought the images up on the screen the
salesman agreed that there WAS in fact a problem with my original
unit. The store was very understanding of the problem and
apologised. I now have a replacement unit and am finally relieved.

Thanks to all contributors

Nick