Help!!! 420ex still under exposing on my 300D

I am still have big probs with my 420ex flash. I tend to find that most of my shots seem be be under exposed by at least 1 stop. I currently have the cracked firmware on it and thank god for FEC because if i couldn't contol the flash all my images would be under exposed.

The flash deffinitly has the power, however it is just not firing bright enough. Bouncing the flash does make the overall image look better but again it is still under exposed. The shot below was taken in manual mode however I get the same results in AV and P modes aswell.


Here is an example of three shots taken.
First was with auto (normal) FEC second was at +1 and third was at +2.
You can see the huge difference.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I have had similar issues with the 550EX, I just usually set it to manual and comp as necessary. Also search the forum for EX flash photograpy, Im sure you will find a ton of information.

BC

I searched but to no avial. Surely we are not the only ones to have had this problem.

Wow - this is directly related to a post I made about 420ex / 550ex comparison. Good to know that you can set FEC with this flash and the hack!

The reason is because everything in the picture is white.
That is a textbook example of why there is such a thing as FEC.
On a totally white subject, FEC must be increased.
On a dark subject FEC should be decreased.

That looks totally normal to me.

Try taking a picture of say, a book that is black. If the AF point lies over that subject, even if the rest of frame is brighter colours, the flash will probably be too bright.
I may post examples shortly.

THis is probably a silly statement but you say to increase or decrease the FEC which is fine if you have the hack.

Given that this camera comes out of the box with no FEC surely these shot are not indicititive of a NORMAL image, otherwise every person who uses the 300d with a ext flash should in theory have all there shots underexposed.

Just a note, the 420ex flash and my G3 work just great. I never have this much trouble.

Therefore I am still searching for the answer.

I agree with drisley 100%. The exposure you got for an overly white scene such as what you shot is normal and the only way to fix it is with some form of FEC. This will not only happen with an external flash but with your internal flash as well. And if you tried shooting the same scene with your G3 I'm sure you'll find the same thing happening with it, too.

On a stock 300D without a hacked FEC, what I would suggest is to focus on the edge of (or even directly on) one of the dark bangs on the cake without recomposing (or use the FE lock after focusing but before recomposing if it's not possible to keep the focus there). I think that you'll find your flash exposure comes out a little better.

this isn't even a FEC issue, it's a EC issue... with that much white, you need to adjust the EC by at least one full stop, maybe two.

Why would it be an EC issue when we're talking about a flash exposure?

ANY meter will give you an exposure setting that will be "off" when you are doing a reflective metering on a subject that is either very light overall or very dark overall. The job that the meter is charged with is to give the settings that would produce an average value for the subject it is aimed at. That means that if you meter a white card, the photo of that white card taken with the meter's recommended settings should turn out mid-grey. The same mid-grey result should occur if you meter a dark grey card and photograph it with the meter's recommended settings. Meter a MIXED subject, however, and the meter's recommended settings produce an AVERAGE of what it has seen. This is usually (but not always) what you'd want in the photo.

Bottom line - you have to know how to use a meter properly under not-so-normal conditions.

...Hence experience. Automatic functions of any camera only serve as a referencing point. If you want to achieve the desired results, you're going to have to do it yourself, and there in lies the art of photography. Otherwise, every one out there is a photographic genius.

I totally agree with you polloloco81. I suggest shooting RAW, convert to TIFF, then post process in whatever program you have available to you. I have been shooting RAW for almost two months now, and I haven't looked back. You have total control with RAW, and no more underexposure headaches

Thants for the tips guys. The only reason I don't like shooting in RAW is the file size issues. It takes up so much space.

Oh well I guess I will just have to keep on learning.

Saber, I was concerned about the amount of space that shooting RAW takes up, but once I began to shoot RAW I haven't looked back. I have enough CF cards now to be able to shoot 200 shots RAW. I look at this way, I would rather be able to take less shots in RAW in which I am confident will turn out great, rather than having more shots in JPEG which will not turn out great. Try it, you won't turn back!