OMD severe flash exposure problem

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Guy Parsons
Guy Parsons Forum Pro • Posts: 28,714
Re: Proof in pudding, er, images......

John King wrote:

Gidday Guy

Just downloaded your images and had a bit of a play in Bridge6/ACR. I am using a calibrated ASUS PA246Q monitor.

Snap, same monitor.

Increased the exposure on the first (underexposed) by 0.3 stop. It looks pretty good to me. Good saturation and colour detail, maybe a bit dark for some.

Yes, the typical under-exposure of Oly TTL that quite a few have seen.

Decreased the exposure on the second (one using +1.3 stops exposure compensation) by 0.6 or 0.7 stop, and it still looked a bit 'bright' to me. In the original of this one, the colours look very bright on my screen, washed out, to be honest.

Hmmm, must go check my calibration again. At this very moment I'm resting the IPS monitor and using the notebook TN monitor. Was connected earlier before the grandkids arrived.

It appears to me that the "correct" exposure is somewhere between the two modified values, depending on personal preference. That is to say, somewhere between +0.3 and +0.7 stop compensation for that particular subject. Because the shots are at an angle to a fine cotton (?) material, reflectance will be different from a straight on shot of the exact same subject.

Well that was the tidy part of the room, any shot in any part of the house at any distance and any scene involved always gives me underexposed TTL results on the camera LCD with flash comp at 0 whether it be direct flash or bounce, both with camera playback histogram and when peering at it in FastStone or any other program. For me that means that current Oly TTL underexposes, that's with a mix of three Pen bodies and 4 Oly flashes.

May I ask why you are using ISO 400 if you want to reduce the impact of any ambient light? Seems to me that even with the OM-D and EPL-5, you would get better DR shooting at ISO 200.

Aha! That's my default ISO for flash at the moment set as a MySet assigned to the M spot of the dial, left it there so FL-300R bounce works better, but for the tests I was using FL-50 so nobody could argue I had used an under-powered flash. When using FL-50 (rarely) or FL-36R (more often) I usually go 200 if the range is right.

I can post the images here if you like. Feel very free to say no.
I hate it when (some) other people play around with my own images, specially when they neither asked for permission to do so, nor were even asked for their opinion in the first place ...

No need to post those as the thread is overloaded as it is, later I'll fire up the monitor again and recalibrate (Spyder4) and have another play to see what I think. Right now I'm wrestling with setting up a NAS and backing up the 4 or 5 computers we seem to manage to use in the house. Hey, Vista is a dog, it won't backup to a NAS no matter what I do. This one is Win7 though and works OK to NAS.

Summary... whatever any experts tell me, all I see in histograms and jpegs from the cameras I own is that Oly Pen TTL does underexpose in most circumstances and is way worse when some white blob is in the frame. Just what the OP said aeons ago with his E-M5.

Really, I need to drop out of this thread as I know what works for me and nothing anybody can tell me makes me believe anything else. Pen/OM-D TTL flash is different to Oly DSLR flash as far as exposure is concerned is my only conclusion so far that makes sense.

If I'm wrong then I'm happy that I'm wrong and manage to get flash exposure that I like with my positive flash compensation. I don't shoot grey cards, I shoot real scenes and judge them on the computer monitor for natural appearance.

Regards..... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow