Reading mode: Light Dark

Delboy's flash problems.....

Go to last post
Underexposed?

It seems the flash didn't put out enough light or the camera didn't let enoug in. Can't say anything more without you giving us more details about the flash and settings. Or was it the on-board?

Pieter
ga-ga said:
UKdelboy has emailed me his problem flash pics and asked me to post
them for comment......
I'll save my comments for a followup.....







originals here
http://www.pbase.com/johngregson/discussion&page=3

regards ga-ga
Click to expand...
 
Ed Albright said:
ga-ga said:
exif on pbase....
we've worried about the standard performance of the onboard flash....
ga-ga
Click to expand...
--Looking at the exif data, and the photo, it would appear that the
camera was pretty far away from the subject. What was the actual
distance?
Easy Ed
Click to expand...
Distance is important, especially for the onboard flash, but I don't think that's the problem here. The exif suggests just under mid zoom in the elephant image, which should be ok with the onboard, I think.

It IS underexposed, as the EV of -2.8 indicates. You could use exposure compensation or set for more incoming light in manual mode. Alternatively, you could try to trick the flash sensor by sticking some semitransparent tape over it - some users have had good results that way.

I have an external flash, so I almost always use that one. No worries about insufficient light output.

Pieter
 
Well, to tell you the truth boys, I don't see much of a problem here. Maybe my standards aren't high enough. But I think when using the 'manual'mode (as has been used here) from this distance I would play a little more with the aperture. As far as I can seen these shot were taken from an angle, which reduces the reflection of the flash, so you have to compensate a little. I wonder what would have happened when using 'auto'. I admitt these aren't studio quality shots, but who would expect taht whit a onboard flash? Normally I would say: nice pic's, maybe next time take more care of good exposure. But... all this will be due to my lower standards.

--
Regards,
Tom
(FinePix S602z)
http://www.pbase.com/tomcee

S602Z FAQ:
http://www.marius.org/fuji602faq.php
 
ga-ga said:
UKdelboy has emailed me his problem flash pics and asked me to post
them for comment......
I'll save my comments for a followup.....







originals here
http://www.pbase.com/johngregson/discussion&page=3

regards ga-ga
Click to expand...
First off I would like to thank ga-ga for taking the time and trouble for posting my pics in the forum.

ga-ga is aware of the details, but for those who maybe interested in this thread the following should explain things in more detail?

All three shots were taken using the 602's internal flash.
The distance was no more than 6'away from the subject.

The lighting conditions in the room consisted of an eight branch chandelier which has a 40w lamp on each branch and hangs in the centre of the ceiling, plus a 60w floor standing lamp in one corner of the room (all lights were on at the time these pics were taken). IMO this can hardly be described as poor lighting conditions in a room size of 14'6 x 15'.

As I stated before in other threads this is the third 602 I've had, and none of them has performed any better.

I'm fully aware I could post process the pics in PS. The problem I have with post processing is I intend to take a vast amount of indoor shots in the near future, and don't have the time to spends hours in front of a PC. Further more I don't accept I should have to post process every single pic that's been shot with the internal flash.

Also, allowing for the probability that my monitor may-not be displaying the pics as they really are, I tried printing some out using PS on Agfa Classic Pearl photo paper, and the results were not much better than they look on the screen.

After sending Fuji UK three underexposed pics, here's their response. The following is a copy & paste from the email ........

Dear Sir

Thank you for your enquiry

The only thing i can advise for you to do is use the camera in Auto
exposure mode this will make a big difference
to the overall result, i have been testing this on the camera today using
the camera in manual exposure mode this makes
all pictures slightly underexposed which i am puzzled by, if you try using
the camera in auto exposure mode you will
find a big difference in the results.

Kind Regards

David Meadows
Technical Advisor

I've tried the suggestion from Fuji, plus many others including setting the internal flash on full power....None of them has made any difference.

Best regards,

Del
 
ukdelboy said:
ukdelboy said:
originals here
http://www.pbase.com/johngregson/discussion&page=3
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
ukdelboy said:
All three shots were taken using the 602's internal flash.
The distance was no more than 6'away from the subject.
The lighting conditions in the room consisted of an eight branch
chandelier which has a 40w lamp on each branch and hangs in the
centre of the ceiling, plus a 60w floor standing lamp in one corner
of the room (all lights were on at the time these pics were taken).
IMO this can hardly be described as poor lighting conditions in a
room size of 14'6 x 15'.
Click to expand...
For the Elpehant shot:

You don't need F5 for that shot. What happens when you take the same shot with the same shutterspeed, at F4, F3.6, F3.2, F2.8?

Same thing for DSCF0006_en.JPG, and DSCF0010.JPG: you don't need F5.

Open it up.

It is actually the same thing the camera does in Auto, you have a too small aperture (= to high F) for the conditions and the flash time.

If you are planning to do a lot of indoor shooting, get an external flash. A simple bounce flash for indoor purposes is not expensive. With that thing on, you can use F5 with ease and shoot from whereever inside your room (but you need to experiment with the shutterspeed to get the right exposures)

--
Sander
http://www.azrifel.com
http://www.pbase.com/azrifel/
 
Sorry, but everyone seems to forget flash compensation available in M, A, S & P modes. Raise it to +.6 and try agaim.

Also, even if you did have to make a minor adjustment through software, you can setup a preset and use batchmode to do all pics at once with the same compensation. Yes, an extra step but still a simple one.
TomCee said:
Well, to tell you the truth boys, I don't see much of a problem
here. Maybe my standards aren't high enough. But I think when using
the 'manual'mode (as has been used here) from this distance I would
play a little more with the aperture. As far as I can seen these
shot were taken from an angle, which reduces the reflection of the
flash, so you have to compensate a little. I wonder what would have
happened when using 'auto'. I admitt these aren't studio quality
shots, but who would expect taht whit a onboard flash? Normally I
would say: nice pic's, maybe next time take more care of good
exposure. But... all this will be due to my lower standards.

--
Regards,
Tom
(FinePix S602z)
http://www.pbase.com/tomcee

S602Z FAQ:
http://www.marius.org/fuji602faq.php
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/mkaplan

Visit the S602Z FAQ:
http://www.marius.org/fuji602faq.php
 
Delboy,
I'm a bit flumoxed........
first look it didn't seem too bad..........

there is detail in the shadows and the highlights but the dynamic range seems to be much reduced...... flat.......
post processing seems to produce a pretty acceptable result......
thumbsplus



ps7



but why should it be necessary?....

as Michael, says you have the flash compensation available for +0.6EV so try that - but it seems that it could need more lift........ the tape trick might boost it..... try magic tape..??

changing the exposure shouldn't make a difference because the flash is calculated automatically from the flash control sensor....

one thought I just had......... how close were you to the chandelier or any of the room lights? (or mirrors or reflections) is there any chance they could have effected the flash sensor....??
the two tele shots seem to be the worse effected ?

in anycase if you are planning a lot of flash shots I would invest in an external flash.
onboard flash is not really up to much other than portraits 2 metres away..

regards ga-ga
ukdelboy said:
ga-ga said:
UKdelboy has emailed me his problem flash pics and asked me to post
them for comment......
I'll save my comments for a followup.....
http://www.pbase.com/image/6878989/medium.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/6878992/medium.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/6878994/medium.jpg
originals here
http://www.pbase.com/johngregson/discussion&page=3

regards ga-ga
Click to expand...
First off I would like to thank ga-ga for taking the time and
trouble for posting my pics in the forum.

ga-ga is aware of the details, but for those who maybe interested
in this thread the following should explain things in more detail?

All three shots were taken using the 602's internal flash.
The distance was no more than 6'away from the subject.
The lighting conditions in the room consisted of an eight branch
chandelier which has a 40w lamp on each branch and hangs in the
centre of the ceiling, plus a 60w floor standing lamp in one corner
of the room (all lights were on at the time these pics were taken).
IMO this can hardly be described as poor lighting conditions in a
room size of 14'6 x 15'.

As I stated before in other threads this is the third 602 I've had,
and none of them has performed any better.

I'm fully aware I could post process the pics in PS. The problem I
have with post processing is I intend to take a vast amount of
indoor shots in the near future, and don't have the time to spends
hours in front of a PC. Further more I don't accept I should have
to post process every single pic that's been shot with the internal
flash.

Also, allowing for the probability that my monitor may-not be
displaying the pics as they really are, I tried printing some out
using PS on Agfa Classic Pearl photo paper, and the results were
not much better than they look on the screen.

After sending Fuji UK three underexposed pics, here's their
response. The following is a copy & paste from the email ........

Dear Sir

Thank you for your enquiry

The only thing i can advise for you to do is use the camera in Auto
exposure mode this will make a big difference
to the overall result, i have been testing this on the camera today
using
the camera in manual exposure mode this makes
all pictures slightly underexposed which i am puzzled by, if you
try using
the camera in auto exposure mode you will
find a big difference in the results.

Kind Regards

David Meadows
Technical Advisor

I've tried the suggestion from Fuji, plus many others including
setting the internal flash on full power....None of them has made
any difference.

Best regards,

Del
Click to expand...
 
ga-ga said:
Delboy,
I'm a bit flumoxed........
first look it didn't seem too bad..........
there is detail in the shadows and the highlights but the dynamic
range seems to be much reduced...... flat.......
post processing seems to produce a pretty acceptable result......
thumbsplus



ps7



but why should it be necessary?....

as Michael, says you have the flash compensation available for
+0.6EV so try that - but it seems that it could need more
lift........ the tape trick might boost it..... try magic tape..??
Click to expand...
With all due respect to anyone who's prepared to overcome an exposure problem on a £549 camera with a piece of "sticky tape" needs their head tested:))) Each to their own, but i'm not prepared to do it. To me that would be like buying a Rolls Royce and then hanging fluffy dice from the interior mirror....No chance:)

One of the first thing I tried with 602 No.1/2 & 3 was to increase the flash +0.6....Unfortunately it hardly made any difference....All indoor shots still came out underexposed.
ga-ga said:
changing the exposure shouldn't make a difference because the flash
is calculated automatically from the flash control sensor....
one thought I just had......... how close were you to the
chandelier or any of the room lights? (or mirrors or reflections)
is there any chance they could have effected the flash sensor....??
Click to expand...
The chandelier hangs from the center of the ceiling, so I was standing about 7'away from the light source when the shots were taken. The elephant shot would be slightly more because the subject is on a top shelf..Approx 8' from the floor, so I had to point the camera up-wards to take the pic, and would be facing away from the light. The character Jugs and the clock pics were both taken at eye level.

The only shot out the three that could possibly reflect light back to the sensor would be the one with the clock. As you can see in the pic. The clock is made of polished brass with glass panels, so it's highly possible in that shot the light could reflect back and fool the sensor. But, I don't think there would be much chance of that happening in the other two shots.

I appreciate it's very difficult for anyone to imagine the lighting conditions, and the room layout in other peoples homes. All I can say about my own set-up is, when all the lights are on we need to wear sun glasses.
ga-ga said:
the two tele shots seem to be the worse effected ?
in anycase if you are planning a lot of flash shots I would invest
in an external flash.
onboard flash is not really up to much other than portraits 2
metres away..
Click to expand...
Glad you mentioned portraits:).....It was on this occasion that I first became aware of the exposure problem with the camera. My son needed a Passport Photo, so I took a mug shot of him against a light grey background. He was standing no more than a metre away. The room had plenty of good daylight coming in through the window. I took the pic with the light behind me using full Auto mode with the internal flash...The shot came out so dark we could hardly see anything out on the monitor.

I agree with you about getting an external flash. But before I spend even more money I need to prove I haven't been given a few dodgy cameras from Jessops. If other 602 users are not experiencing the same problem as me it would indicate that Jessops could be doing just that? If this is the case I'll simply get a refund and buy another 602 from somewhere else? The other possibility could be the 602's internal flash, or the exposure sensor are not up-to much, and that's the nature of the beast I would have to live with?

I found Fuji's reply in their email intersting when they said.........

"i have been testing this on the camera today using the camera in manual exposure mode this makes all pictures slightly underexposed which i am puzzled by"

Notice in his email how he glossed over the problem he encountered, and then went on to tell me what I should be doing. The statement he made makes me wonder if Fuji have known about the exposure problem all along. Just like Fuji knew about the buckleing lens plate on the 6900. Of course Fuji are not alone. Canon were also in denial when people complained about the G2's case cracking.

Having read many storey's on this, and many other camera forums. There's always a constant flow of people with a list of complaints about their camera. It appears to me the manufacurers of these things are taking their customers for a costly ride.

Thanks to everyone who have taken the time to give their opinion.

Best regards,

Del
 
ga-ga said:
changing the exposure shouldn't make a difference because the flash
is calculated automatically from the flash control sensor....
Click to expand...
It does when the flash is already at its maximum and the small aperture (high F) just does not let that little burst of light (few thousands of a second) in for the given distance.

Opening the aperture (smaller F) at the same maximum flash performance does help to get more light on the sensor.
Try it.
ga-ga said:
onboard flash is not really up to much other than portraits 2
metres away..
Click to expand...
And when they get to dark, backlit them + slow synchro flash.

--
Sander
http://www.azrifel.com
http://www.pbase.com/azrifel/
 
Hi Pieter,
.....where did you get the EV=-2.8 from.....??
ga-ga
Pieter Gordebeke said:
Ed Albright said:
ga-ga said:
exif on pbase....
we've worried about the standard performance of the onboard flash....
ga-ga
Click to expand...
--Looking at the exif data, and the photo, it would appear that the
camera was pretty far away from the subject. What was the actual
distance?
Easy Ed
Click to expand...
Distance is important, especially for the onboard flash, but I
don't think that's the problem here. The exif suggests just under
mid zoom in the elephant image, which should be ok with the
onboard, I think.

It IS underexposed, as the EV of -2.8 indicates. You could use
exposure compensation or set for more incoming light in manual
mode. Alternatively, you could try to trick the flash sensor by
sticking some semitransparent tape over it - some users have had
good results that way.

I have an external flash, so I almost always use that one. No
worries about insufficient light output.

Pieter
Click to expand...
 
agreed....

but we are concerned about the adaquacy of the flash part of the exposure - it should be able to provide adaquate exposure by itself when asked...
ga-ga
Azrifel said:
ga-ga said:
changing the exposure shouldn't make a difference because the flash
is calculated automatically from the flash control sensor....
Click to expand...
It does when the flash is already at its maximum and the small
aperture (high F) just does not let that little burst of light (few
thousands of a second) in for the given distance.
Opening the aperture (smaller F) at the same maximum flash
performance does help to get more light on the sensor.
Try it.
Azrifel said:
onboard flash is not really up to much other than portraits 2
metres away..
Click to expand...
And when they get to dark, backlit them + slow synchro flash.

--
Sander
http://www.azrifel.com
http://www.pbase.com/azrifel/
Click to expand...
 
ukdelboy said:
ukdelboy said:
as Michael, says you have the flash compensation available for
+0.6EV so try that - but it seems that it could need more
lift........ the tape trick might boost it..... try magic tape..??
Click to expand...
With all due respect to anyone who's prepared to overcome an
exposure problem on a £549 camera with a piece of "sticky tape"
needs their head tested:))) Each to their own, but i'm not prepared
to do it. To me that would be like buying a Rolls Royce and then
hanging fluffy dice from the interior mirror....No chance:)
Click to expand...
can't disagree.....
but it might pinpoint where the problem is....
and it might give a workarround......
ukdelboy said:
ukdelboy said:
the two tele shots seem to be the worse effected ?
in anycase if you are planning a lot of flash shots I would invest
in an external flash.
onboard flash is not really up to much other than portraits 2
metres away..
Click to expand...
Glad you mentioned portraits:).....It was on this occasion that I
first became aware of the exposure problem with the camera. My son
needed a Passport Photo, so I took a mug shot of him against a
light grey background. He was standing no more than a metre away.
The room had plenty of good daylight coming in through the window.
I took the pic with the light behind me using full Auto mode with
the internal flash...The shot came out so dark we could hardly see
anything out on the monitor.
Click to expand...
did the flash definitely fire?.....maybe it hadn't charged
did you retake it .....?
ukdelboy said:
I agree with you about getting an external flash. But before I
spend even more money I need to prove I haven't been given a few
dodgy cameras from Jessops. If other 602 users are not experiencing
the same problem as me it would indicate that Jessops could be
doing just that? If this is the case I'll simply get a refund and
buy another 602 from somewhere else? The other possibility could be
the 602's internal flash, or the exposure sensor are not up-to
much, and that's the nature of the beast I would have to live with?

I found Fuji's reply in their email intersting when they said.........

"i have been testing this on the camera today using the camera in
manual exposure mode this makes all pictures slightly underexposed
which i am puzzled by"

Notice in his email how he glossed over the problem he encountered,
and then went on to tell me what I should be doing. The statement
he made makes me wonder if Fuji have known about the exposure
problem all along. Just like Fuji knew about the buckleing lens
plate on the 6900. Of course Fuji are not alone. Canon were also in
denial when people complained about the G2's case cracking.
Click to expand...
try to get the best out of whoever you are dealing with - but I don't think Mr Fuji would be too pleased at this response either....!!
ukdelboy said:
Having read many storey's on this, and many other camera forums.
There's always a constant flow of people with a list of complaints
about their camera. It appears to me the manufacurers of these
things are taking their customers for a costly ride.
Click to expand...
Their aim is to make money, they just put a collection of glass, plastic and metal together and offer it for sale..... I think it does quite a good job......
and it looks pretty anyway!......
ukdelboy said:
Thanks to everyone who have taken the time to give their opinion.

Best regards,

Del
Click to expand...
The onboard flash of most cameras can will only be average at best. (duck)

I only mean you can't expect it to do everything an external flash can do, that could cost up to as much as the camera .......!!
It could be a peculiararity of the of the circumstances......

eg maybe the flash sensor is more sensitive to some colours and could react to the distinctice colour of your wallpaper..... or something else specific......

I suggest you try the flash performance in a variety of different surroundings.....
if it still doesn't perform anywhere then you have a problem.....

If there is a problem - I think it will be on the sensing of the flash......that determines how much the flash outputs....

If you press Fuji to repair it - it might just be as simple as turning a setting inside the camera.....
the tape is a workarround that might do the same .....
the more complicated a device is the more aspects there are to go wrong...

if you exchange it again .......you might get one with one of the more important aspects not working so well......
Its not a Rolls Royce price after all........

regards ga-ga
 
ga-ga said:
but we are concerned about the adaquacy of the flash part of the
exposure - it should be able to provide adaquate exposure by itself
when asked...
Click to expand...
It could be firing at its maximum already, but the camera is just not capable of grabbing all that light. So the flash is offering adequate exposure, but the settings on the camera are not right. The small aperture is wrong and there is nothing wrong with the flash.

None of the auto flashes on any of my camera's are really good. But playing with the ISO and aperture settings make up a lot of that.

It is like providing enough gas to an engine to go 200mph, but it only does 160 because the gearbox settings are not up to it. Change the gearbox settings and it might do 200.

--
Sander
http://www.azrifel.com
http://www.pbase.com/azrifel/
 
I don't think so -

1.shutter speed is irrelevent unless there is a fairly high level of ambient light - the flash discharges in 1/1000th or less

2. if you experiment on aperture priorety I think you will find more or less similar results irrespective of aperture.......... this is because the flash control sensor determines the exposure - ie automatic flash.
thats how I see it....
ga-ga
Azrifel said:
ga-ga said:
but we are concerned about the adaquacy of the flash part of the
exposure - it should be able to provide adaquate exposure by itself
when asked...
Click to expand...
It could be firing at its maximum already, but the camera is just
not capable of grabbing all that light. So the flash is offering
adequate exposure, but the settings on the camera are not right.
The small aperture is wrong and there is nothing wrong with the
flash.
None of the auto flashes on any of my camera's are really good. But
playing with the ISO and aperture settings make up a lot of that.

It is like providing enough gas to an engine to go 200mph, but it
only does 160 because the gearbox settings are not up to it. Change
the gearbox settings and it might do 200.

--
Sander
http://www.azrifel.com
http://www.pbase.com/azrifel/
Click to expand...
 
I have Exif Reader 2.something and it reads this kind of brightness information. I can't interpret absolute numbers, but I do know my own flash shots range from slightly negative to +4-ish, depending on how much of the full picture surface is affected by flashlight.

What I mean is that a flash shot with small subject and a lot of dark background will give negative EV values, so they are probably an average of the whole image. Close portraits with flash tend to go to +4 and higher because there is very little background.

Delboy's shot has no background in the sense that the wall is right behind the subject, so it should be equally exposed. -2.8 to me indicates that the image is underexposed. It can be corrected in the digital darkroom, but my experience is that this produces too much noise. I prefer to tone down a slightly overexposed image, and that's how I do most shots with difficult light.

When in doubt, increase the incoming light.
ga-ga said:
Pieter Gordebeke said:
Ed Albright said:
ga-ga said:
exif on pbase....
we've worried about the standard performance of the onboard flash....
ga-ga
Click to expand...
--Looking at the exif data, and the photo, it would appear that the
camera was pretty far away from the subject. What was the actual
distance?
Easy Ed
Click to expand...
Distance is important, especially for the onboard flash, but I
don't think that's the problem here. The exif suggests just under
mid zoom in the elephant image, which should be ok with the
onboard, I think.

It IS underexposed, as the EV of -2.8 indicates. You could use
exposure compensation or set for more incoming light in manual
mode. Alternatively, you could try to trick the flash sensor by
sticking some semitransparent tape over it - some users have had
good results that way.

I have an external flash, so I almost always use that one. No
worries about insufficient light output.

Pieter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I see it that way too, gaga.

In aperture priority, flash power varies with the selected aperture. On my 6900, the shutter is at 1/60 for the wide-angle half of the lens and at 1/125 for the zoom half.

I usually use manual mode anyway because I'm used to that from the external flash, and because I prefer to use higher shutter speeds (1/250).

Pieter
ga-ga said:
Azrifel said:
ga-ga said:
but we are concerned about the adaquacy of the flash part of the
exposure - it should be able to provide adaquate exposure by itself
when asked...
Click to expand...
It could be firing at its maximum already, but the camera is just
not capable of grabbing all that light. So the flash is offering
adequate exposure, but the settings on the camera are not right.
The small aperture is wrong and there is nothing wrong with the
flash.
None of the auto flashes on any of my camera's are really good. But
playing with the ISO and aperture settings make up a lot of that.

It is like providing enough gas to an engine to go 200mph, but it
only does 160 because the gearbox settings are not up to it. Change
the gearbox settings and it might do 200.

--
Sander
http://www.azrifel.com
http://www.pbase.com/azrifel/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top