# Canon flash



## rlarsen (May 12, 2016)

Canon


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

They all do. Just do a little background reading on what it is trying to do and you will come to terms with it. 

Remember, the 'subject' (actually the object closest to the camera) is all the flash is trying to illuminate in most situations, things like differing subject to background distances will give vastly different overall exposure but should prioritise what it 'thinks' is your subject and that should be fairly constant.


----------



## zim (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

I find ETTL II to be fairly consistent providing the flash head is pointing directly at the subject and there are no reflective surfaces around. I also find having the camera in Manual when flash in ETTL II mode more controllable than any auto mode.
The two issues of course are resultant yuk lighting and that there always seems to be reflective surfaces around! ;D

_Switching to manual mode and working likes it's 1977 is no answer_

Well it is for me when using bounce flash and/or want to balance with external light (i.e. window light) and I want to at least feel like I'm in control


----------



## YuengLinger (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Sounds like you need to regroup.

Great teacher: http://neilvn.com/tangents/


----------



## RGF (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

My experience is that E-TTL II works very well. A bit hot, but easily compensated.

Occasionally I get something really off (like 3 stops too much light) but that is only a few percent of the time.

Perhaps you units are bad or have a bad connection to your camera.


----------



## unfocused (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> Switching to manual mode and working likes it's 1977 is no answer.



As someone who actually used strobes in 1977, I can assure you, no matter what your experience, it's nothing like trying to shoot with a potato masher strobe. Constant guesswork and prayer. Batteries that lasted for about five shots and overpriced cords with wires so thin that they broke after about two assignments. 



rlarsen said:


> It takes all the fun out of photography and replaces it with stress.



I'd love to know what stress-free, fun photography for a paying client feels like. Never had that experience myself. I'm always stressed. But maybe that's just me.

Anyway, I mostly use TTL with multiple strobes and on-location portrait shoots. In my experience, it's brilliant. (Although I have had problems with slow recycle times, even with battery packs, but that's primarily my own impatience). Fortunately, I don't have to do a lot of event shoots with strobes (I'd shoot myself if I had to earn a living doing wedding receptions, fundraisers and galas.) When I have done those events, the ETTL works quite well, once I've done a few test shots. Not perfect, but certainly better than the 1970s. And, unlike the 1970s, you can usually rescue an image that's reasonably close to correct. (Hmm..maybe that three-stop shadow lifting with new sensors isn't such a waste after all)



zim said:


> ...I also find having the camera in Manual when flash in ETTL II mode more controllable than any auto mode...



This is one of the bad things about talking about strobes. People are often unclear about whether they are referring to "manual" on the camera or "manual" on the strobe. I am assuming the OP is talking about keeping the strobe in manual, rather than the camera. Using manual mode on the camera is, in my opinion, about the only way to use a strobe unless you are just going for some fill light or have a specific effect in mind.


----------



## zim (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



unfocused said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > ...I also find having the camera in Manual when flash in ETTL II mode more controllable than any auto mode...
> ...



That's why I made that point, it wasn't clear to me what camera mode(s) the OP was using when using ETTL. Sorry if I confused the issue.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

What could be worse?

Making pretty much exactly the same rant as six months ago, but, apparently, being completely unable to figure out something better... 

Haven't you, rlarsen, determined what was wrong with your Speedlite, learned how to use it, or found something better?

And your post is so general that readers can only guess what troubles you are having. 

One more constructive suggestion, in addition to the great teacher mentioned in an earlier post, read Syl Arena's _Speedliter's Handbook._

Are you here to learn or to just vent about not knowing how to use an essential tool?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

I have a buddy who likes to build things, but couldn't drive nails in straight with his Stanley hammer. Knowing it was the tool's fault, he bought a $150 Estwing hammer. More bent nails. Being a smart guy, he immediately understood that with tools, you get what you pay for, so he called in favor from a friend at the Pentagon and borrowed one of their infamous $10,000 hammers. Damn it all, but that awesomely premium hammer still failed to drive nails in straight. 

I'm sure *rlarsen*, being a bright guy like my buddy, will immediately grasp the moral of the story: there's no such thing as a good tool.


----------



## rlarsen (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> A friend at Canon tells me the lens distance to subject info is not activitated when the flash is positioned in bounce mode.



Well, clearly that's not the fault of Canon's E-TTL II system. Didn't your friend explain how it's _supposed_ to work? See, the actuators on the head hinge/pivot (it has them, trust me) determine the angle of elevation and rotation. Then, the E-TTL II system determines the most appropriate option of the two available – either the Star Trek tricorder in the camera body or the bent-light reversible laser in the flash – to measure the distance to the surface off which the light will be bounced and the angle of that surface relative to the image plane. Thus, the camera can determine the difference between the lens distance to subject and the longer distance the light from the flash must travel to reach that same subject, and use that difference to set the flash exposure properly with bounce mode. 

Oops, my bad...that's E-TTL III. Should be out very soon.


----------



## Ozarker (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> Many of the pros I know have given up on ttl and use manual power control. I'm not sure if they share my inability to use the tools of the trade and learn over time. I know a couple photographers who shoot parties published in Vanity Fair magazine. They share my lack of skill and problem solving and use manual power and try to shoot all their subjects at the same distance. Most recently I've been using manual settings on my camera and not AV mode.



I always shoot with the camera and all flashes I use in manual (in the past 6 months), but that's because I'm a control freak. It is also because I like to shape the effect I want. Works very well for stationary people or what have you.

I would imagine that maybe that cannot be done at parties, etc... Just too much going on all over the place. I don't shoot events and I'm no pro.

You sure know a lot of pros.  

Y'all should get together and brainstorm what the problem is and come to some kind of consensus about what to do. You never know. Y'all could probably come up with something to benefit all of us.


----------



## rlarsen (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## Mikehit (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

As matter of interest, rlarsen are you saying Canon is a POS compared to [brand X] and because [brand X] can do it so should Canon? Or are you decrying that camera systems in general the lack of a feature you think should exist?
The latter would suggest it is a technological problem, not a Canon problem (which is how I read your OP).


----------



## tpatana (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Lolz.

I love ETTL on my camera. Works like a champ, never fails.

If you need advice how to learn to use those, there's tons of books, online forums, youtube videos etc. Probably more than one can consume in one lifetime.

So instead of ranting how bad it is (and pretty much giving out that it's you, not the flash), you could just ask nicely. Maybe even provide couple example pictures where it failed, tell us what were your settings and most of the time nice people here will give you advice and tips how to improve.

But if your message is "BARF BARF BARF CANON SUCKS BARF BARF BECAUSE I DON"T KNOW HOW TO USE FEATURE X BARF BARF SUCKS". Yea, don't expect much quality tips on the answers either.


----------



## Kristofgss (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Auto flash mode works pretty well for me, the only issue I have is when I focus on a black dress or white wall and it tries to compensate for that by giving too much light or too little, but that is easy to resolve with flash exposure compensation. It's quite logical in that way. Average pictures work just fine, if you have something really dark, you dial down the flash, if you have something really bright, you dial up the flash. The camera makes a good guess at what it is supposed to do, but it can't differentiate between black fabric which has to remain black and 
Remote flash with the optical system is more of a hit-and-miss for me, but I did make the mistake of using an EX-90 as master which has really limited range.


----------



## rlarsen (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## Mikehit (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

If you don;t mind, I will repeat my question: in your experience is this a problem that another marque does not have, or is it a general problem with flash?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Kristofgss said:


> Auto flash mode works pretty well for me, the only issue I have is when I focus on a black dress or white wall and it tries to compensate for that by giving too much light or too little, but that is easy to resolve with flash exposure compensation. It's quite logical in that way. Average pictures work just fine, if you have something really dark, you dial down the flash, if you have something really bright, you dial up the flash. The camera makes a good guess at what it is supposed to do, but it can't differentiate between black fabric which has to remain black and
> Remote flash with the optical system is more of a hit-and-miss for me, but I did make the mistake of using an EX-90 as master which has really limited range.



+1. I tend to shoot in AV and I use EC and FEC to make adjustments as I go. If I'm doing a portrait session and the subject tends to move, I'll have the background flashes on manual and the subject flashes on ETTL.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



neuroanatomist said:


> I have a buddy who likes to build things, but couldn't drive nails in straight with his Stanley hammer. Knowing it was the tool's fault, he bought a $150 Estwing hammer. More bent nails. Being a smart guy, he immediately understood that with tools, you get what you pay for, so he called in favor from a friend at the Pentagon and borrowed one of their infamous $10,000 hammers. Damn it all, but that awesomely premium hammer still failed to drive nails in straight.
> 
> I'm sure *rlarsen*, being a bright guy like my buddy, will immediately grasp the moral of the story: there's no such thing as a good tool.



Obviously, he needed heavier nails. I find that railroad spikes never bend when using my cheap $5 Home Depot hammer. Getting them to go in straight is a different matter  

I've never tried to drive one with my flash though. Generally, I find that understanding the ins and outs for the automatic flash settings, particularly when using TV and AV require some research, since they work differently from the fully automatic mode. I did not realize that at first, and had some strange results. I sometimes set the camera to manual, but generally, I get good results with the flash. However, its going to be a issue as I found last night when some of the subjects in a photo are wearing white and some black. I usually try to keep the whites from being blown out.


----------



## digitalride (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

After getting frustrated and doing some controlled tests a few years ago, I have concluded that the Canon flash system is not nearly as good as it could be from a technical/theoretical standpoint. However I'm not sure if any other system is better so I decided to just live with it and adjust things manually as necessary. 

Particularly when bouncing, it over illuminates close objects and under-illuminates far away objects - and yes the flash had plenty of power to illumninate the far away objects if turned up manually. If it is truly reading the light falling on the object just before the shot I don't understand why it can't do a better job, I guess a preflash is somehow different enough than the real flash that it can't be accurately predicted.

It would be awesome to have a "FE ITERATIVE" mode where after one shot it realized that it underexposed the spot, so it would automatically dial up the power for the next shot, and then iterate after that.


----------



## old-pr-pix (May 13, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

In 1977 my flash was a Graflex Stroboflash IV. Not only was it full manual, the flash head had to be hand held separate from the camera (every shot was off camera flash), it weighed about 12 pounds, it used two expensive 225 volt batteries to give only about 200 full power shots before you threw them away, and when fired gave off an unmistakable POP. 

Late in 1978 I switched to a Canon 199A, which by the way still works fine, and have never looked back. Are current generation flashes perfect - hardly! - and maybe it was the training of having done so much manually; but, I fully appreciate the automation of current speedlights. Do they miss proper exposure sometimes - yep - but usually I know it is going to happen and adjust compensation. Or, for old time sake, just go full manual and appreciate that I don't have to wait until I developed all the film to know my guess was on, or off, target! I could use a flashmeter to set exposure (don't believe those were around in 1977 either, or at least I couldn't afford one). I'd consider that cheating. There has to be some skill left in the process!


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Sold my 70D because even in auto mode the battery still wouldn't install itself. Didn't matter which button I pushed. Piece of junk.

Had the same problem when I'd hoped the 5D Mark III would solve my problem. It is crappy too, but a friend took it into his shop and somehow got the battery to install.

Now the problem is that it won't charge itself in auto mode either. Got to take it back to my friend to see what he can do with it. Another piece of junk.

I thought auto mode meant I didn't have to think. Turns out there are stories all over the internet about how crappy the 70D and 5D Mark III are and how they won't take a decent photo.

Sony.


----------



## rlarsen (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## tpatana (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> A poster on this forum expressed frustration with the TTL exposure accuracy of his 600 EX RT speedlight that costs $469.00 Maybe some of you can share with him your helpful stories about hammers, batteries, and uninformed rants.



Like I said above, there's big difference admitting that you don't know how it works and asking for advice, compared to telling it's worst of the worst and waste of money/time (when everyone else knows it's you, not the device).

I plan to take ~1000 clicks tomorrow using Canon TTL, and based on earlier experience I expect 99%+ to be properly lit.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



digitalride said:


> it over illuminates close objects and under-illuminates far away objects - and yes the flash had plenty of power to illumninate the far away objects if turned up manually. If it is truly reading the light falling on the object just before the shot I don't understand why it can't do a better job, I guess a preflash is somehow different enough than the real flash that it can't be accurately predicted.
> 
> It would be awesome to have a "FE ITERATIVE" mode where after one shot it realized that it underexposed the spot, so it would automatically dial up the power for the next shot, and then iterate after that.



If you learn how to use it, there is a solution. The laws of physics say that objects further away will get less light, why to you blame the flash for this, its just a light bulb and cannot give each item in a room a custom amount of light.


----------



## rlarsen (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> With Canon products the subject distance info is deactivated which unfortunately makes it less accurate in bounce mode.



Physics? Bah, who cares about physics. What's an inverse square, anyway...a circle?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> They had thyristor sensors that could be placed in the hotshoe. I could aim the flash nearly anywhere I wanted to, including bounce, and get quite consistent auto exposure results with typical subject matter.



The 600-EX-RT and 600-EX-RTII have a thyristor in them too. When I got mine I played with it for a few exposures and it worked very well.

If that is the kind of tech you seek then maybe pick up a cheap 600 now the MkII is coming, or you can have my old 533G with thyristor for a fraction of the price, it will work fine.


----------



## Zeidora (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



digitalride said:


> Particularly when bouncing, it over illuminates close objects and under-illuminates far away objects - and yes the flash had plenty of power to illumninate the far away objects if turned up manually. If it is truly reading the light falling on the object just before the shot I don't understand why it can't do a better job, I guess a preflash is somehow different enough than the real flash that it can't be accurately predicted.



Have you heard of the "inverse square law"? No amount of sophistication in the metering can address that. In mixed light (ambient plus flash) you can reduce the flash contribution by opening f-stop or increasing ISO to get more even illumination back and front (assuming ambient is even over entire scene).
Alternatively, your bounce is spilling too much onto the subject directly. In that case, you need to block light from the flash with a gabo/barndoors or similar, or set the zoom-setting of the flash to a longer focal length (if available).


----------



## FECHariot (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

I only use bounce with my 580 and or 430s and I almost never get an exposure off more than 1/3rd stop unless I am trying to push the flash beyond its limits like bouncing too high a surface at too small an aperture or something like that. It would seem you would be better off addressing a specific problem and posting the exact settings and the resulting exposure and letting someone help you. Or you could look for hand made custom nails that don't bend so easily.


----------



## d (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



FECHariot said:


> It would seem you would be better off addressing a specific problem and posting the exact settings and the resulting exposure and letting someone help you.



This.

The hyperbole-laden venting you've opened your topics with doesn't really characterise you as someone to be engaged with constructively. You label yourself a pro photographer, but you're not representing yourself as one, more as an inexperienced, whinging amateur. All equipment has a learning curve, and different flash systems have their metering and performance nuances that need to be understood and mastered. Over the years I've used both Nikon and Canon speedlights on camera to shoot events, using both direct and bounced lighting, and haven't noticed any real performance difference between the two systems.

I don't think it's the gear.

d.


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> A poster on this forum expressed frustration with the TTL exposure accuracy of his 600 EX RT speedlight that costs $469.00 Maybe some of you can share with him your helpful stories about hammers, batteries, and uninformed rants.



Yeah, and it hurt so bad you went to another thread and complained about the hurt. I think you are trolling. If your friend at Canon or your friends at Vanity Fair can't help you...

At least you admit in that thread to your limited understanding instead of blaming the manufacturer.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Every time I parallel park my Minivan I rub the wheels against the curb, yet Consumer Reports gives it such a high rating. When I complain on the minivan forums about how poorly a $32,000 vehicle handles, I get criticized for my driving skills.

I guess I struck a nerve.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



YuengLinger said:


> Every time I parallel park my Minivan I rub the wheels against the curb, yet Consumer Reports gives it such a high rating. When I complain on the minivan forums about how poorly a $32,000 vehicle handles, I get criticized for my driving skills.
> 
> I guess I struck a nerve.



See, if you'd only gone there asking for help instead of blaming your minivan, someone might have been willing to suggest the solution.


----------



## triggermike (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

I have had excellent success with ETTL from my 580EXii _when it stays in ETTL mode!_ I would check your flash LCD and verify it is staying in ETTL when you are actually ready to fire. My flash, and many others on blogs, seems to suffer a defect within the unit (not contacts at hotshoe.) I admit I have simply been to lazy to send it in for repair. The unit wanders out of ETTL and usually fires at full power.
But, as I mentioned in the beginning, when ETTL stays engaged, it works flawlessly especially when bounced. I saw an earlier post about hot foregrounds and dark backgrounds when bouncing - this requires an adjusted bounce angle, not the flashes fault


----------



## YuengLinger (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I parallel park my Minivan I rub the wheels against the curb, yet Consumer Reports gives it such a high rating. When I complain on the minivan forums about how poorly a $32,000 vehicle handles, I get criticized for my driving skills.
> ...



 Haven't seen those in YEARS!


----------



## tonyespofoto (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

I will guess that either your particular unit is malfunctioning or you are not operating it properly. It is entirely possible that you have a plus or minus exposure chosen on the flash or you have the same chosen on your camera, which would be a global change, affecting not only the flash exposure but the ambient exposure as well. As someone who used strobes back in the seventies, I think I have some experience here and would like to offer you some suggestions. First, don't EVER let the strobe do your thinking for you. No matter how sophisticated, no camera or strobe can successfully make decisions like that. You need to understand how it thinks and constrain its thinking so that it give you an acceptable result. Let me explain: First, set you camera on Tv. Set your shutter at 1/60, or the lowest shutter speed you can reliably handhold. Nest, set your ISO to give you a good exposure at the aperture you would like to shoot at in that location without the strobe. I generally (but not always) set the strobe to +1/3. Now you have constrained its thinking to give you an exposure close to the base exposure in the room. NEVER point the strobe directly at the subject. Bounce it off the ceiling while using a modifier like the Lumiquest 80/20 or the little white card (in my opinion slightly less effective) that you can pull out of the 580EX. In my experience at hundreds of venues, the aperture hovers around f/2.8, the shutter stays at 1/60 and the ISO is 400-1000. What you are aiming at is an exposure looks just like what your eye sees, only better. The bounce light from the strobe + the adequately rendered ambient exposure gives you a good even light that shows the venue properly. The small amount of forward-directed light from the strobe clears up raccoon eyes and cleans up the color. I use a flash bracket that always keeps the flash directly over the lens, so that any shadows fall below and behind the subject. I often use gels over the strobe the match the existing light in the room. This is a choice that only your own experience can inform and of course is the subject of a different and much longer post. Now at each shot you need to think like a strobe: Is there a window behind the subject or in the field of view that will mess up its thinking? If so change your position or exposure. Common at corporate events are group shots involving shiny award plaques. Tell your subjects to angle the plaques slight downward or the reflection off the plaque will cause a severe under-exposure, not to mention Photoshop post production work. These are just 2 examples of things that cause auto-exposure failure. There are many others and your experience should be your guide here. White tablecloths, black walls and glass-covered pictures in the background are others. Of course, you need to be shooting RAW. This will allow you to make nearly every exposure spot-on. That said, flash auto exposure has came a long way since the seventies. It is way more accurate and reliable. Back in the day, you educated yourself by carrying a hand-held meter and measuring exposure and comparing that to what your eye/experience told you was correct. After a while, you would get pretty sharp at guessing exposure. Cameras are not foolproof now and have never been. By properly guiding the instrument, you can produce professional quality work far more easily than was possible in the seventies. Is it stressful? Yes, it is. You are combining your experience and a mechanical/electronic device in an effort to create a perfect record of an event, done in real time. Stress is what causes you to be sharp, not only technically, but also to improve your eye, to recognize good images as they occur and capture them. When all of this works together and you are on your game, it is exhilarating. 
Regards,
Tony


----------



## rlarsen (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## deleteme (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> I've been struggling with Canon ttl flash for as long as I can remember. After spending a couple weeks shooting some really big corporate events I just have to say the Canon 580 EX used on my 5D mklll in ttl mode is the worst product I have used in my life. This POS is totally unreliable. I hate it. It takes all the fun out of photography and replaces it with stress. Switching to manual mode and working likes it's 1977 is no answer. How do people cope with this ? Are there speedlights for Canon that actually work in auto mode ?



I totally agree. However, whenever I express this opinion I am greeted with a torrent of responses that are always along the lines of "You don't know how to use it"
It doesn't matter that I have been doing this from the 70's and am extremely tech savvy. 
The simple fact is that depending on a machine to make the decision will always introduce variables that the machine cannot recognize and compensate for.
For on camera flash nothing yet compares to the old 45GN Nikkor where aperture varied with the distance focused upon. Set the guide number and go. Perfect exposures every time.
With the electronics of today's cameras there is no reason that a similar system with even more ability could be incorporated into on camera flash.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> Most recently I've been using manual settings on my camera and not AV mode.



Av mode limits the flash to fill. I quickly learnt to go manual on camera as the flash was often too underpowered for my tastes in Av. Sound like the problems you were having?


----------



## Larsskv (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



tonyespofoto said:


> I will guess that either your particular unit is malfunctioning or you are not operating it properly. It is entirely possible that you have a plus or minus exposure chosen on the flash or you have the same chosen on your camera, which would be a global change, affecting not only the flash exposure but the ambient exposure as well. As someone who used strobes back in the seventies, I think I have some experience here and would like to offer you some suggestions. First, don't EVER let the strobe do your thinking for you. No matter how sophisticated, no camera or strobe can successfully make decisions like that. You need to understand how it thinks and constrain its thinking so that it give you an acceptable result. Let me explain: First, set you camera on Tv. Set your shutter at 1/60, or the lowest shutter speed you can reliably handhold. Nest, set your ISO to give you a good exposure at the aperture you would like to shoot at in that location without the strobe. I generally (but not always) set the strobe to +1/3. Now you have constrained its thinking to give you an exposure close to the base exposure in the room. NEVER point the strobe directly at the subject. Bounce it off the ceiling while using a modifier like the Lumiquest 80/20 or the little white card (in my opinion slightly less effective) that you can pull out of the 580EX. In my experience at hundreds of venues, the aperture hovers around f/2.8, the shutter stays at 1/60 and the ISO is 400-1000. What you are aiming at is an exposure looks just like what your eye sees, only better. The bounce light from the strobe + the adequately rendered ambient exposure gives you a good even light that shows the venue properly. The small amount of forward-directed light from the strobe clears up raccoon eyes and cleans up the color. I use a flash bracket that always keeps the flash directly over the lens, so that any shadows fall below and behind the subject. I often use gels over the strobe the match the existing light in the room. This is a choice that only your own experience can inform and of course is the subject of a different and much longer post. Now at each shot you need to think like a strobe: Is there a window behind the subject or in the field of view that will mess up its thinking? If so change your position or exposure. Common at corporate events are group shots involving shiny award plaques. Tell your subjects to angle the plaques slight downward or the reflection off the plaque will cause a severe under-exposure, not to mention Photoshop post production work. These are just 2 examples of things that cause auto-exposure failure. There are many others and your experience should be your guide here. White tablecloths, black walls and glass-covered pictures in the background are others. Of course, you need to be shooting RAW. This will allow you to make nearly every exposure spot-on. That said, flash auto exposure has came a long way since the seventies. It is way more accurate and reliable. Back in the day, you educated yourself by carrying a hand-held meter and measuring exposure and comparing that to what your eye/experience told you was correct. After a while, you would get pretty sharp at guessing exposure. Cameras are not foolproof now and have never been. By properly guiding the instrument, you can produce professional quality work far more easily than was possible in the seventies. Is it stressful? Yes, it is. You are combining your experience and a mechanical/electronic device in an effort to create a perfect record of an event, done in real time. Stress is what causes you to be sharp, not only technically, but also to improve your eye, to recognize good images as they occur and capture them. When all of this works together and you are on your game, it is exhilarating.
> Regards,
> Tony



Great post!


----------



## YuengLinger (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

"The simple fact is that depending on a machine to make the decision will always introduce variables that the machine cannot recognize and compensate for."

Which fails to explain the immense popularity of everything from automatic transmission to, umm, auto focus?

Some situations ETTL works best, other situations manual mode is a better choice. To make a blanket statement that only Manual mode on flash is the right way is, first, wrong, and, second, eliminating a lot of the great tech we are paying for in speedlites and Canon bodies.

If you only shoot Manual with your body, you are an ideologue first, and a rather frustrated photographer second. If you ONLY shoot Av or Tv, you are going to be blowing exposure fairly often.

If you ONLY shoot at 1/60th with flash, you are failing to take full advantage of the power of the speedlite and not actually controlling ambient light without sacrificing optimal ISO. Sometimes max sync speed is best, which is 1/200th in the 5D3--especially for fill. Sometimes dragging the shutter is best for a situation.

There are times when using ETTL and FEC is faster, smarter, and more likely to produce excellent exposures (meaning with near the max amount of data in the RAW file). There are times when only manual gives enough power, dispenses with the pre-flash, and maintains consistent output regardless of distance or ambient light.

There don't have to be camps of never use this or never use that. A smart mongoose uses the right tactic for each cobra it encounters!

If you have been using flash since the 70's but haven't read excellent books (by Joe McNally, Syl Arena, Neil Van Niekirk, and several others) lately, say the past five years, then you really don't know what your speedlites are capable of, how to get the most out of them, and how to avoid frustration. And you are doing a disservice to other photographers when you browbeat them about innovation being just meaningless marketing hype.

"You young whippersnapper, all that automatic stuff is just a bunch of hooey. Real men use manual!"

The problem with being so experienced is that sometimes progress just passes you by because you think you've learned the best ways and haven't been open to better ways that have definitely been working for many, many photographers.


----------



## rlarsen (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## FECHariot (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



tonyespofoto said:


> I will guess that either your particular unit is malfunctioning or you are not operating it properly. It is entirely possible that you have a plus or minus exposure chosen on the flash or you have the same chosen on your camera, which would be a global change, affecting not only the flash exposure but the ambient exposure as well. As someone who used strobes back in the seventies, I think I have some experience here and would like to offer you some suggestions. First, don't EVER let the strobe do your thinking for you. No matter how sophisticated, no camera or strobe can successfully make decisions like that. You need to understand how it thinks and constrain its thinking so that it give you an acceptable result. Let me explain: First, set you camera on Tv. Set your shutter at 1/60, or the lowest shutter speed you can reliably handhold. Nest, set your ISO to give you a good exposure at the aperture you would like to shoot at in that location without the strobe. I generally (but not always) set the strobe to +1/3. Now you have constrained its thinking to give you an exposure close to the base exposure in the room. NEVER point the strobe directly at the subject. Bounce it off the ceiling while using a modifier like the Lumiquest 80/20 or the little white card (in my opinion slightly less effective) that you can pull out of the 580EX. In my experience at hundreds of venues, the aperture hovers around f/2.8, the shutter stays at 1/60 and the ISO is 400-1000. What you are aiming at is an exposure looks just like what your eye sees, only better. The bounce light from the strobe + the adequately rendered ambient exposure gives you a good even light that shows the venue properly. The small amount of forward-directed light from the strobe clears up raccoon eyes and cleans up the color. I use a flash bracket that always keeps the flash directly over the lens, so that any shadows fall below and behind the subject. I often use gels over the strobe the match the existing light in the room. This is a choice that only your own experience can inform and of course is the subject of a different and much longer post. Now at each shot you need to think like a strobe: Is there a window behind the subject or in the field of view that will mess up its thinking? If so change your position or exposure. Common at corporate events are group shots involving shiny award plaques. Tell your subjects to angle the plaques slight downward or the reflection off the plaque will cause a severe under-exposure, not to mention Photoshop post production work. These are just 2 examples of things that cause auto-exposure failure. There are many others and your experience should be your guide here. White tablecloths, black walls and glass-covered pictures in the background are others. Of course, you need to be shooting RAW. This will allow you to make nearly every exposure spot-on. That said, flash auto exposure has came a long way since the seventies. It is way more accurate and reliable. Back in the day, you educated yourself by carrying a hand-held meter and measuring exposure and comparing that to what your eye/experience told you was correct. After a while, you would get pretty sharp at guessing exposure. Cameras are not foolproof now and have never been. By properly guiding the instrument, you can produce professional quality work far more easily than was possible in the seventies. Is it stressful? Yes, it is. You are combining your experience and a mechanical/electronic device in an effort to create a perfect record of an event, done in real time. Stress is what causes you to be sharp, not only technically, but also to improve your eye, to recognize good images as they occur and capture them. When all of this works together and you are on your game, it is exhilarating.
> Regards,
> Tony



It could have been a great post, but after 35 sentences or so without a paragraph break, my head exploded. Maybe next post, just hit enter a couple of times after say every 15 or 20 sentences. Don't mind if it its in the middle of a train of thought or not: it would be an improvement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

My grandfather had an old Pontiac with a 454 V8. Man, that thing purred. Accelerated so smooth, beyond a cushy ride. The carburetor was really top notch, did a great job with the leaded gasoline. Boy oh boy, why don't today's sedan's have that much power and smoothness?

What, a Stone Age relic isn't relevant to the conversation?


----------



## d (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Thought I might break this up so that it's actually readable.



tonyespofoto said:


> I will guess that either your particular unit is malfunctioning or you are not operating it properly. It is entirely possible that you have a plus or minus exposure chosen on the flash or you have the same chosen on your camera, which would be a global change, affecting not only the flash exposure but the ambient exposure as well.
> 
> As someone who used strobes back in the seventies, I think I have some experience here and would like to offer you some suggestions. First, don't EVER let the strobe do your thinking for you. No matter how sophisticated, no camera or strobe can successfully make decisions like that. You need to understand how it thinks and constrain its thinking so that it give you an acceptable result.
> 
> ...


----------



## YuengLinger (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Just from paragraph style and content...I'm going to go out on a limb and ask the OP, rlarsen, if he is posting under multiple names? Hmm...? Is he also Tony?

And NormlNorm? 

Oy vey.


----------



## deleteme (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



YuengLinger said:


> "The simple fact is that depending on a machine to make the decision will always introduce variables that the machine cannot recognize and compensate for."
> 
> Which fails to explain the immense popularity of everything from automatic transmission to, umm, auto focus?
> 
> ...



Just the sort of condescending comment I expect to get here. 
As I noted in my post the usual response is "You are not doing it right." 
Yours is generously followed with a heaping measure of assumption that I am absolutist in my process or that I have never explored the subtleties of flash exposure.

This is an error on your part.

I have used flash carefully and creatively for 40+ years. From the days of using a tape measure to check flash to subject distance to regularly employing upwards of 12 remotely triggered strobes on commercial productions. There is scarcely an exposure I make that does not involve strobe lighting.

It is a matter of objective fact that TTL exposure is dependent on the reflectivity of the subject in front of the camera and the assumptions the camera makes about that reflectivity.
Even small movements of subjects in contrasty situations (Which is very common at weddings and events) will dramatically change exposure from frame to frame.
You might note that virtually every demo of OCF with TTL is an enormously tedious iterative process of shooting, chimping, and exposure comp. THEN the subject turns slightly and the process begins again.

As for being enslaved to any particular shutter speed, aperture or pair of pants I don't appreciate a juvenile assumption of my lack of technical ability. Sorry, but I have been doing this at far deeper level than you can imagine for longer than you can possibly know. 

I have little patience with "advice" from fanboys who learned their craft by reading press releases and blogs written by "pros" shilling for manufacturers. I was doing more complex work than McNally and Arena and Niekirk before the internet was invented. You, apparently are still awed by matches and other great advance in lighting.

Learn your facts and your craft and you won't be so quick to write such annoying posts.


----------



## Ozarker (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



YuengLinger said:


> If you only shoot Manual with your body, you are an ideologue first, and a rather frustrated photographer second.



I like the rest of your post, but I don't necessarily agree with the "ideologue" part. Some, I think, always use manual because we like to. I do the same with flash. Personally, I couldn't care less what others want to do and don't advocate either way.

I've shot local high school football games (just for myself) at night in manual mode with good results. Yes, AV mode may have been easier... but not as much fun for me.


----------



## rlarsen (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

I'm sure glad Norm showed up. No doubt a guy with a client list, portfolio, and list of awards to rival the "experts" here.
He clearly speaks from real experience and a sound mind.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> I'm sure glad Norm showed up. No doubt a guy with a client list, portfolio, and list of awards to rival the "experts" here.
> He clearly speaks from real experience and a sound mind.



It's "The Three Faces of Eve"! (rlarsen, please thank Normlnorm for using paragraphs!)

As for chimping, it is a slightly derisive term for taking advantage of the camera's light meter with what I think, in the 5DIII, is a very good histogram. I think most of us learn to avoid it when it means missing shots, but even in the horse and buggy days, surely photographers looked at their handheld light meters and even used POLAROIDS to make sure exposure and other aspects were correct during a shoot. 

So, call me a proud chimper!

I think you must have some kind of chip on your shoulder to dismiss the advice of great photographers. Joe McNally's career suggests he knows what he is doing, as do his images. 

CanonFanBoy, perhaps "ideologue" was heated rhetoric. I intended to say those who insist others shoot only in Manual are doing so based on a misguided sense of purity. I'm sure you enjoy the challenges, just as I used to enjoy driving a stick shift until I got tired of it...(I think that happened after I fell in love and realized shifting gears got in the way of holding hands.)

I'm using manual about 75% of the time, when the subject is in ambient lighting which is pretty steady but background light is changing, which would throw off Av. 

Tv occasionally when shutter speed is critical, but I don't do a lot of action or birds in flight. 

Av when the light is changing rapidly for the whole scene without creating significant contrast between subject and background. I just find that no matter how quick I am, the camera is faster in this scenario. And I can concentrate confidently on framing, timing, etc.

As long as somebody doesn't feel guilty about using ETTL or Av or, gasp, even P, just because an artiste is saying pencils, brushes, oil, and canvas are the only pure ways to capture an image.


----------



## Ozarker (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



YuengLinger said:


> I'm sure you enjoy the challenges, just as I used to enjoy driving a stick shift until I got tired of it...(I think that happened after I fell in love and realized shifting gears got in the way of holding hands.).



   The challenge really came after holding hands became "automatic".


----------



## rlarsen (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## Mikehit (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

So it sounds to me that what you are saying is that the problem is not Canon-specific. Which suggests it is a technological limitation met by all manufacturers. Which implies something about the practicality of what you seem to want.


----------



## rlarsen (May 15, 2016)

*Re: Canon *

Canon


----------



## YuengLinger (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



CanonFanBoy said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you enjoy the challenges, just as I used to enjoy driving a stick shift until I got tired of it...(I think that happened after I fell in love and realized shifting gears got in the way of holding hands.).
> ...



In my case, she would completely agree with you.


----------



## tpatana (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Yesterday shot ~1500 shots with camera on manual and flash on ETTL automatic blasting directly at models without any modifier or bounce. Today shot ~1500 shots with camera on manual and manual flash through umbrella. Time to go check which ones came better.


----------



## GaryJ (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



tonyespofoto said:


> I will guess that either your particular unit is malfunctioning or you are not operating it properly. It is entirely possible that you have a plus or minus exposure chosen on the flash or you have the same chosen on your camera, which would be a global change, affecting not only the flash exposure but the ambient exposure as well. As someone who used strobes back in the seventies, I think I have some experience here and would like to offer you some suggestions. First, don't EVER let the strobe do your thinking for you. No matter how sophisticated, no camera or strobe can successfully make decisions like that. You need to understand how it thinks and constrain its thinking so that it give you an acceptable result. Let me explain: First, set you camera on Tv. Set your shutter at 1/60, or the lowest shutter speed you can reliably handhold. Nest, set your ISO to give you a good exposure at the aperture you would like to shoot at in that location without the strobe. I generally (but not always) set the strobe to +1/3. Now you have constrained its thinking to give you an exposure close to the base exposure in the room. NEVER point the strobe directly at the subject. Bounce it off the ceiling while using a modifier like the Lumiquest 80/20 or the little white card (in my opinion slightly less effective) that you can pull out of the 580EX. In my experience at hundreds of venues, the aperture hovers around f/2.8, the shutter stays at 1/60 and the ISO is 400-1000. What you are aiming at is an exposure looks just like what your eye sees, only better. The bounce light from the strobe + the adequately rendered ambient exposure gives you a good even light that shows the venue properly. The small amount of forward-directed light from the strobe clears up raccoon eyes and cleans up the color. I use a flash bracket that always keeps the flash directly over the lens, so that any shadows fall below and behind the subject. I often use gels over the strobe the match the existing light in the room. This is a choice that only your own experience can inform and of course is the subject of a different and much longer post. Now at each shot you need to think like a strobe: Is there a window behind the subject or in the field of view that will mess up its thinking? If so change your position or exposure. Common at corporate events are group shots involving shiny award plaques. Tell your subjects to angle the plaques slight downward or the reflection off the plaque will cause a severe under-exposure, not to mention Photoshop post production work. These are just 2 examples of things that cause auto-exposure failure. There are many others and your experience should be your guide here. White tablecloths, black walls and glass-covered pictures in the background are others. Of course, you need to be shooting RAW. This will allow you to make nearly every exposure spot-on. That said, flash auto exposure has came a long way since the seventies. It is way more accurate and reliable. Back in the day, you educated yourself by carrying a hand-held meter and measuring exposure and comparing that to what your eye/experience told you was correct. After a while, you would get pretty sharp at guessing exposure. Cameras are not foolproof now and have never been. By properly guiding the instrument, you can produce professional quality work far more easily than was possible in the seventies. Is it stressful? Yes, it is. You are combining your experience and a mechanical/electronic device in an effort to create a perfect record of an event, done in real time. Stress is what causes you to be sharp, not only technically, but also to improve your eye, to recognize good images as they occur and capture them. When all of this works together and you are on your game, it is exhilarating.
> Regards,
> Tony


+1


----------



## Pookie (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



rlarsen said:


> The imaginary and condescending tale from Mr. Neuroanatomist about his "friend" with poor hammering skills doesn't offend me. My skin is thick and some online mocking is to be expected. I've been a working pro for a long time but always welcome friendly advice and suggestions from anyone willing to share. I have more questions than answers and
> admire those with great success and few challenges. Rudy Winston, Canon's top camera tech, has been a source of helpful guidance and support and happily shares customer suggestions to Canon research and development in Japan.



This I don't believe for a second...


----------



## tpatana (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Pookie said:


> rlarsen said:
> 
> 
> > The imaginary and condescending tale from Mr. Neuroanatomist about his "friend" with poor hammering skills doesn't offend me. My skin is thick and some online mocking is to be expected. I've been a working pro for a long time but always welcome friendly advice and suggestions from anyone willing to share. I have more questions than answers and
> ...



Well, he didn't say on what profession, so don't be so hasty passing judgement. He might be expert pro in making archery bow strings for all we know.


----------



## digitalride (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you learn how to use it, there is a solution. The laws of physics say that objects further away will get less light, why to you blame the flash for this, its just a light bulb and cannot give each item in a room a custom amount of light.



Was that supposed to be sarcastic? No one expects "just a light bulb" from an e-ttl flash. I don't expect a custom amount of light for each item, just consistent exposure that doesn't vary with distance to subject.


----------



## Orangutan (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



digitalride said:


> I don't expect a custom amount of light for each item, just consistent exposure that doesn't vary with distance to subject.


Apologies if this was addressed earlier, but have you done static testing to confirm this? My 580 flash worked just as I expected, even bouncing. It's been a while since I dug into this topic since I don't use flash much anymore, but if I recall correctly, proper exposure methods partially depend on the body you're using. Some bodies will meter correctly only through the center AF point.

I suggest you construct a static test and post your methods and results. You may have some insights, and maybe get some good suggestions.

Keep in mind that a lot of people use Canon flashes successfully, so there could be something small you've overlooked in your technique.


----------



## Pookie (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



tpatana said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > rlarsen said:
> ...



Oh but wait... he is a "professional photographer". He said so on the internet. Here is a personal email to me outlining all the work he's done. *Yet, still can't figure out a speedlite and why letting it drive creates a problem...*

Below is a partial list of my clients:

Shell Global
The New York Times
Time LIFE
The NBA
The Sierra Club
Popular Photographer Magazine
AMWAY
Scholastic Magazine
AP Images New York

I've covered the Pope, NBA Finals, Muhammed Ali, Mike Tyson, Floyd Mayweather. I've been given clearance from the Pentagon and training so I could fly with fighter pilots. I photographed a secret mercenary training camp for Time LIFE. I've cover Fashion Week in New York City more than six times. I've worked in the Capital in Washing DC. I've covered six U.S. Presidents, and was selected by the family of the Late President Ford to be the only photographer to cover his final funeral. I also covered his funeral events in Wash DC. I've photographed heart transplants and organ harvests for a major story, and shot for Popular Photography Magazine. Recently I've been out of the country for Shell Global. I've photographed stories on corruption in Central America. 

The best is the secret mercenary training camp... 

Well, I covered the Seal Team Six when they took down Osama but my speedlite in TTL wouldn't cooperate so I used the muzzle flash from my dual 1911's to light the shots. The trick is timing the shots and then picking up the camera to catch the action :


----------



## Click (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Pookie said:


> Well, I covered the Seal Team Six when they took down Osama but my speedlite in TTL wouldn't cooperate so I used the muzzle flash from my dual 1911's to light the shots. The trick is timing the shots and then picking up the camera to catch the action :



LOL ;D


----------



## Pookie (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Click said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I covered the Seal Team Six when they took down Osama but my speedlite in TTL wouldn't cooperate so I used the muzzle flash from my dual 1911's to light the shots. The trick is timing the shots and then picking up the camera to catch the action :
> ...



Whaaa... don't believe me Click ;D here's a selfie I took with Cairo on our last jump, in TTL.


----------



## Click (May 16, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

Ha Ha Ha ;D Pookie, you're the best.


----------



## digitalride (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Orangutan said:


> Apologies if this was addressed earlier, but have you done static testing to confirm this?
> ...
> Keep in mind that a lot of people use Canon flashes successfully
> ...



I did do controlled testing several years ago, I thought I posted them on dpreview but I can't find it now, the conclusion I got from the responses was "yeah, e-ttl isn't very good with bouncing" . If I do more indoor photography in the future I'll revisit it.

Yes, a lot of people use them successfully, but a lot of people have to adjust the flash power in many situations, and a lot of people just live with the inconsistency. Yes, a lot of people complaining about flash are probably doing something wrong, but there is a lot of room for improvement to make it easier for newbies. For example, why isn't there a flash spot metering mode ( without using FEL ) ? That would probably eliminate 75% of all complaints that the flash didn't illuminate the subject properly.




Zeidora said:


> Have you heard of the "inverse square law"? No amount of sophistication in the metering can address that.



I am really confused by these kind of responses. Sophistication in the metering can tell the flash to use more power as necessary, isn't that the whole point of e-ttl? As long as the flash has enough power it is technically possible to get a proper exposure - there are certainly no laws of physics preventing it. I really think the underlying algorithms are decades old and they could do better, but its not a high priority since pros have learned how to adapt.


----------



## Don Haines (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Pookie said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...


Here's a selfie I took with Lucky on my last jump.....


----------



## Click (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*

;D ;D ;D


----------



## d (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Don Haines said:


> Here's a selfie I took with Lucky on my last jump.....



I call FAKE...the cat's face should be more shadowed...


----------



## Don Haines (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



d said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a selfie I took with Lucky on my last jump.....
> ...


That's what fill flash is for


----------



## d (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Don Haines said:


> That's what fill flash is for



Good point, but still, I'm a little suspicious about this one.


----------



## Orangutan (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



digitalride said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies if this was addressed earlier, but have you done static testing to confirm this?
> ...





> For example, why isn't there a flash spot metering mode ( without using FEL ) ?



This is several years old, but may help you. I think you may have missed a fundamental element of flash metering -- the pre-flash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-flash_metering

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/


----------



## digitalride (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Orangutan said:


> I think you may have missed a fundamental element of flash metering -- the pre-flash.



I'm fully aware of the pre-flash. If there was no pre-flash I could understand why it doesn't work better. My understanding is that FEL is just a pre-flash that you can take at an earlier time and hold that flash setting for subsequent shots. However it seems on most canon bodies FEL does what you might call "flash spot metering" while without FEL you only get evaluative or average metering.

A few years ago I read everything I could on the subject, but where is the official current Canon document describing how the flash system is supposed to work? The manuals hardly saw anything at all and there hasn't been much published since e-ttl ii was introduced over a decade ago. My understanding is that they won't explain it all for fear of someone figuring out their (flawed) trade secrets.


----------



## Orangutan (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



digitalride said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I think you may have missed a fundamental element of flash metering -- the pre-flash.
> ...


I think this is not quite right. Please read the second link I sent you.



> but where is the official current Canon document describing how the flash system is supposed to work?



http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/events_calendar/event_details/cll_events/oc/20160126_oc_ettl.shtml
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/events_calendar/event_details/cll_events/20140811_sanfran_ettlflash_cllsf.shtml
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2015/20150317_stoner_speedlite_blog.shtml
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2014/20141028_divitale_ettl_blog.shtml
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/speedlite_tip_pt1_article.shtml


----------



## Ozarker (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Pookie said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



I just don't see how you controlled the drone, set the exposure and comforted Cairo at the same time. Truly a master.

Pookie doesn't need a rip cord either. He's a professional ripper himself.


----------



## digitalride (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash *

Thanks for the links orangutan. After searching through them I couldn't find anything that addresses the problems I've seen, but I'll try to read through them completely as I have time. 

If anyone can point me directly to where Canon explains how to do spot flash metering with consistent exposure on the subject regardless of distance while bouncing I'd appreciate it.


----------



## hne (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash *



digitalride said:


> Thanks for the links orangutan. After searching through them I couldn't find anything that addresses the problems I've seen, but I'll try to read through them completely as I have time.
> 
> If anyone can point me directly to where Canon explains how to do spot flash metering with consistent exposure on the subject regardless of distance while bouncing I'd appreciate it.



In short: ambient reading plus a preflash measured in 17 zones (obvious outliers discarded) are the base of the ETTL II bounce flash exposure. For direct on-camera flash, the flash guide number and distance information from the lens can be used to get a reasonable starting point. Flash Exposure Lock will do spot metering, non-AF-point linked.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/E-TTL_II.do


----------



## Pookie (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



Don Haines said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Click said:
> ...



Don, you're makin Cairo very jealous... he was turned down for the astronut program


----------



## Pookie (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?*



CanonFanBoy said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Click said:
> ...



Practice CFB


----------



## digitalride (May 17, 2016)

*Re: Canon TTL flash *



hne said:


> http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/E-TTL_II.do



thanks for the link, that sheds some light on the flash spot metering situation. Here's the way I read it: 10 years ago a lot of people used focus and recompose, so Canon decided to handle that situation as the default and make people who don't use focus and recompose use FEL. 

Granted focus and recompose is still popular with the 6D. But with a lot of modern bodies focus and recompose isn't necessary in most situations so it would be very nice to have an option for flash spot metering without using FEL.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 19, 2016)

And so, this thread goes down in CanonRumors Forum history as the biggest pile on ever. Every post by the OP has undergone a history revision. :-X


----------



## d (Aug 19, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And so, this thread goes down in CanonRumors Forum history as the biggest pile on ever. Every post by the OP has undergone a history revision. :-X



OP has finally edited out all the BS, and that's what remained...

d.


----------



## Tmarie (Oct 1, 2016)

rlarsen said:


> Canon


Complete newbie to this forum and not sure how to use this site from my phone so many apologies if I haven't followed any protocol. I have this problem...a head banging potential camera throwing feet stomping throwing my toys out the pram problem. ;D

Canon 6d (new), speedlite 580ex ii (second hand eBay works fine on camera) yn622c ii off camera triggers X 2 (new)...assemble all as per instructions....fires when on e-ttl and m mode but photos are still dark. I cannot fathom why....can anyone please help me find an answer? Really getting hacked off that I cannot solve this problem. Any advice appreciated :-*


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 2, 2016)

Tmarie said:


> rlarsen said:
> 
> 
> > Canon
> ...



Maybe this can help.
Check exposure and flash compensation.
Check your shutter speed and synch speed.
Double check all settings for exposure
try each flash separately, and then again in the mixed environment.
Check yn web site for bugs
make sure all firmware up to date.
That's all I have.
Good luck
Scott


----------



## unfocused (Oct 2, 2016)

Agree with Scott's advice. 

When you say "m" mode, are you referring to the camera's manual mode for setting shutter speed and fstop? That's usually the best way to use flash. Set your shutter speed at something safe like 1/60 and your fstop at something conservative, like f5.6. If it still doesn't work, then there is probably something else causing problems. 

I've used the 622 triggers in the past with multiple 580 EX II and they worked quite well. If the triggers are firing the flash, then there is mostly likely a problem with the flash and the sync. As long as your shutter is set for a 1/60 or 1/125 it should work. 

Still not working? I'm out of ideas.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 3, 2016)

can I suggest a very simple test:

set your camera to "A" mode and fire your flash in ETTL-II mode. see if the shot is still dark.
it will ikely be better exposed than previously. in 'A" and "P" mode, camera use the flash as Key light rather than as a fill light in AV / TV mode, for an instance...to establish that your flash works fine with your camera in ETTL-II mode, lets take all the unkowns out of the equation.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 3, 2016)

Always when I'm suspecting something with flash, I put it either pointing completely away, or pointing close by at a object or wall. Then fire test shot. If close to object or wall, it should be really bring compared to surrounding. If not, timing is wrong. Or when firing flash wrong direction, if that didn't change the picture brightness compared to earlier, again timing is off. Simple troubleshooting. Then when you have that done, you can try changing FEC and other settings to see which one is causing the too dark picture (assuming that first step proved that the flash is firing at correct timing).


----------

