Reading mode: Light Dark

Underexposure

Go to last post
. . . with the DReb and flash pics. Here is a typical point & shoot type pic from last nite. You can find a few more on my pBase site. "P" mode, Sigma 20mm 1.8, Sigma 500 Super with index card and no FEC adjustment* . No FEL or any particular attention to focus point, just grabbed the camera and blasted away.



Also, I get consistently good results from the internal flash, "P" mode and the Canon 35mm f2.0. Sorry, I haven't put any of those up on pBase.

Regards, Fred W.
http://www.pbase.com/picsbyfw/root
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
 
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
It is a problem that I am still working to resolve for months. As I go, I am learning more and more. Depends on distance and back lighting and ISO setiing.

In a night club, since the ambient dark pics on the green look good. Also if you use +2/3 on P mode, overexposed at iso 400, reduce to 200 and it is almost ok. Distance also a factor. Use all this variables and experiment. I also got Sigma 500 Super DG, heavy and not always taking it with me. Results vary still experimenting. Just my opinion thet Canon did not adjust flash for ISO settings, it is fires the same regardless of the ISO set on the camera.
Happy Newe year!

Nate
 
Mentioned in the thread above is a reference to firmware upgrades for the DR. Have there been firmware upgrades? If so what is the number or label and does the upgrade address overall underexposure issues?
Thanks very much.
HenryR
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
--
HenR
http://www.pbase.com/hrussell
 
Jitter said:
If you have a consistent problem with this why don't you download
the fec program and adjust the FEC on the camera. I have not read
this entire thread so maybe this has already been suggested.
--
Thanks,
JR
Click to expand...
JR , where do you download the fec program? Is this a firmware update?
jtome
 
HenryR said:
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
--
HenR
http://www.pbase.com/hrussell
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the firmware upgrade from canon

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.htmlhas anyone done it ?

jtome
 
jtome said:
HenryR said:
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
--
HenR
http://www.pbase.com/hrussell
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the firmware upgrade from canon

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.htmlhas
anyone done it ?

jtome
Click to expand...
Sorry try this link.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/pop_up/edrfirmware.html
 
You may want to look at using FECSet to set the FEC on the camera.

I haven't experienced any serious issues with underexposure, but I did download this utility to try out, and it does work (and it's free). Note that it only allows you to set the FEC while the camera is attached to the computer, but that setting will remain in effect after disconnecting and until the next time you use FECSet to change it.

Here's a link to the site:
http://revolution.cx/rcx/fecset.htm

Jim
jtome said:
jtome said:
HenryR said:
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
--
HenR
http://www.pbase.com/hrussell
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the firmware upgrade from canon

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.htmlhas
anyone done it ?

jtome
Click to expand...
Sorry try this link.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/pop_up/edrfirmware.html
Click to expand...
 
00vert said:
I haven't experienced any serious issues with underexposure, but I
did download this utility to try out, and it does work (and it's
free). Note that it only allows you to set the FEC while the camera
is attached to the computer, but that setting will remain in effect
after disconnecting and until the next time you use FECSet to
change it.

Here's a link to the site:
http://revolution.cx/rcx/fecset.htm

Jim
jtome said:
jtome said:
HenryR said:
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
--
HenR
http://www.pbase.com/hrussell
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the firmware upgrade from canon

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.htmlhas
anyone done it ?

jtome
Click to expand...
Sorry try this link.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/pop_up/edrfirmware.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
HenR
http://www.pbase.com/hrussell
 
thanks 00vert
jtome
00vert said:
I haven't experienced any serious issues with underexposure, but I
did download this utility to try out, and it does work (and it's
free). Note that it only allows you to set the FEC while the camera
is attached to the computer, but that setting will remain in effect
after disconnecting and until the next time you use FECSet to
change it.

Here's a link to the site:
http://revolution.cx/rcx/fecset.htm

Jim
jtome said:
jtome said:
HenryR said:
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
--
HenR
http://www.pbase.com/hrussell
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the firmware upgrade from canon

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.htmlhas
anyone done it ?

jtome
Click to expand...
Sorry try this link.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/pop_up/edrfirmware.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi there, as a follow up I've discovered a downloadx from this site that allows to set the Flash exposure compensation to my camera. It works great and I have solved my problem by using a +1/3 compensation to fix my underexposure issue. The download is NOT from Canon and is free.

http://revolution.cx/rcx/fecset.htm
annegir said:
Anne
rbmorse said:
I think there's a lot of confusion aobut how the camera works with
a flash.

I have a 550EX for my Drebel. With the 550EX in E-TTL mode with no
FEC, head at 75 deg angle for a ceiling bounce (flash to ceiling
distance roughly 8 feet...the room has 12 foot white ceiling) and a
LumiQuest Promax attached. The
target distance (some mostly dark furniture in a darker corner of
the room) is about 7 feet:

With camera in "P" mode (F2.8 and 1/60 selected by the camera) the
exposure appears to be well lit...but wait...the white areas on the
target are in fact blown.

With the camera in "M" mode (F8 and 1/160) the exposure is
darker...but the white areas are not blown out (details clearly
visible) and the histogram is better balanced (but lower levels)
than "P" mode.

Had I not checked the "info" screen I would have never noticed the
blown areas, but they certainly are.

So the question is...which exposure is correct? The brighter one
with blown highlights (but can go straight to the printer, if
necessary) or the the darker one with the light areas within range
but needing a bit of help from PS before they can be printed?

BTW...the camera's behavior matches with I think the manual is
trying to tell me. I think.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi there, as a follow up I've discovered a download from this site that allows to set the Flash exposure compensation to my camera. It works great and I have solved my problem by using a +1/3 compensation to fix my underexposure issue. The download is NOT from Canon and is free.

http://revolution.cx/rcx/fecset.htm
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
 
I have had underexposure issues with the flash (420EX) in some circumstances, but not all. I am still trying to understand why. For example, the attached picture was not adjusted in Photoshop -- it is perfectly well exposed. I would NOT want to use a FEC fix on this.
Marc

 
You don't at all sound nasty. You are absolutely dead on. What you describe is what the camera should do. Moreover, and more importantly, it is what Canon says it should do. It doesn't. Work around. Yep. Sure. Can I ? Absolutely. Should I have to do so? As you said - one should not. Why? Canon tells me that I shouldn't. Hence (among several other not insubstantial reasons), for me, the 300d is back where it belongs - at Best Buy, for someone else to fall prey to Canon's marketing nonsense.
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
 
Dan wrote:

I downloaded FECSet and tried it out and it works GREAT. I find I only need +1/3 f-stop compensation and my flash pictures are infinitely brighter and better. I use a discontinued Canon EX380 flash unit with E-TTL. It has remarkable range. I appreciate getting the info about FECSet.
00vert said:
I haven't experienced any serious issues with underexposure, but I
did download this utility to try out, and it does work (and it's
free). Note that it only allows you to set the FEC while the camera
is attached to the computer, but that setting will remain in effect
after disconnecting and until the next time you use FECSet to
change it.

Here's a link to the site:
http://revolution.cx/rcx/fecset.htm

Jim
jtome said:
jtome said:
HenryR said:
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
--
HenR
http://www.pbase.com/hrussell
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the firmware upgrade from canon

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.htmlhas
anyone done it ?

jtome
Click to expand...
Sorry try this link.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/pop_up/edrfirmware.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I simply can't understand Canon attitude regarding this problem. I understand the impracticality of fixing a film camera, but for a computerized product at this time and age? We EXPECT canon to issue firmware fixes when needed. It should not be hard to keep users happy when you have such a good product.

Canon exhibits Microsoft style arrogance. Unfortunately, there are no open source options in digital photography, and little chance of it happening in the near future.

-Joseph
tristan1 said:
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Anne,

I'm confused! I'm not a professional. I'm not even a hobbyest with tons of experience. Matter of fact when it comes to cameras I'm probably a complete nincompop. Lots of the jargon has me terrifed to ask questions. BUT (didn't you just know that word was coming?) I've had the 300D for all of 3 days. and so far I've been just mucking about with it trying to learn what the terms mean and what different things do. I took the below picture in our office with the lights OUT (the only ambient light in the room was from my computer screen behind me and my husbands infront of me with just the built in flash

Shooting mode: nightscence
Shutter Speed: 1 sec
AV 5.0
ISO: 400
WB: Auto
and I think??? the parameter 1 setting as it came out of the box.

as you can see it is definitely NOT underexposed. Again, I am a total and complete NOVICE so educate me. What's the camera not doing that it's supposed to?

 
Wondering what mode you shooting with the 300D? P mode?
annegir said:
http://revolution.cx/rcx/fecset.htm
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
As I stated in another thread, I got an email from Canon indicating that they have no reports of this behavior. (Ignoring the fact that he had one from me) Therefor they will not fix it.

I hope everyone else who experienced this problem will report it. If they get fet enough complaints perhaps they will fix it.

Steve
pepster said:
Canon exhibits Microsoft style arrogance. Unfortunately, there are
no open source options in digital photography, and little chance of
it happening in the near future.

-Joseph
tristan1 said:
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Anne,

FYI
Just recieved a 550EX, It seems to work much better, without FEC.
The 420EX makes a great wireless slave.

Steve
annegir said:
I'm experienced in photography and this camera has serious
underexposure issues as it pertains to the flash. As a result I've
become very proficient with Photophop as I'm always processing my
pics. After contacting Canon twice, the first they told me it was a
result of my white balance needing customizing...uhmm sure...and
the second time I was told calibration of the camera was in order
to fix this issue. Wrong. Canon got it wrong. At this price this
camera should at the very least be able to properly expose at ISO
400 with a Speedlite flash from 6 feet away without ALWAYS having
to bump up the brightness in Photoshop. I know I can get around the
problem, but that IS the problem...I shouldn't have to!? Many
websites that have reviews mention this problem. What's your
experience? Thanks..I'm not as nasty as I sound.
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