WOW! Canon G6 and 420ex What a Combo!

Hm.... trying to imagine it. Someone could draw a picture of that device for me?

You can see the hole on the right that the flash head sticks in. I just point the flash straight up with this sitting on it. Just a big diffuser.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

This is it! Thank you! I will try to do the same!

woffles wrote:
You can see the hole on the right that the flash head sticks in. I just point the flash straight up with this sitting on it. Just a big diffuser.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

That kinda looks like a Lightsphere. I have an Omnibounce but have been reading that some like the Lightsphere better because you don't need to bounce it.
I have tried using the Omnibounce striaght on and hve had some lens flare problems if there was an overhead light in the room.

Was wondering if anyone could comment on how they deal with the "harshness" you get from the 420ex? I shoot in AV just about all the time and it seems the camera doesn't throttle back the flash enough at times. I am talking about when the omnibounce isn't on.

I generally shoot with a -2/3 flash exposure compensation even with the Omnibounce, which I keep on at all times. And often aim the flash just off vertical, even if there's no ceiling; although I've done straight-on shots with success when someone isn't up against the wall, as with this one...

that's one beautiful photograph of the man Don

by the way, Arton's (Raw) post was dated Aug 8th
just saying in case he is a.wo.l.


and people are waiting on a flash reply




oops

Don Ellis wrote:
I generally shoot with a -2/3 flash exposure compensation even with the Omnibounce, which I keep on at all times. And often aim the flash just off vertical, even if there's no ceiling; although I've done straight-on shots with success when someone isn't up against the wall, as with this one...

Cheers,

Don

Thanks Don,

So the camera doesn't "adjust" the flash? I had read that the camera metering communicates with the 420ex adjusting to "fill" flash when appropriate. I will have to throttle down the flash manually as you suggest. Great pic by the way!

Wow! There are so many tricks and tips here already for the combo. Well done chappers! Please keep them coming! I've bought me G6 our one-year anniversary a present! Yep! The 420EX.:p I was worried about how to handle this new toy... Can't wait for the flash gun to arrive!

I am new to the flash fotorgaphy but as I understood "fill" flash adjustment works only for day light.

marie wrote:
that's one beautiful photograph of the man Don

by the way, Arton's (Raw) post was dated Aug 8th
just saying in case he is a.wo.l.

and people are waiting on a flash reply

oops

Too funny on the date... thanks for pointing that out. We can blame Andrey for resurrecting this thread.

The shot is from my website, as you probably know. I don't really care for flash photography but sometimes that's the only way you get a photo. I took about six of Peter and realized that five were out of focus, probably due to the camera's flash selection of f/2.0, so I started shooting Av mode at f/5.6 when I take flash photos and everything's been fine.

Cheers,

Don

Don Ellis wrote:
Too funny on the date... thanks for pointing that out. We can blame Andrey for resurrecting this thread.

The shot is from my website, as you probably know. I don't really care for flash photography but sometimes that's the only way you get a photo. I took about six of Peter and realized that five were out of focus, probably due to the camera's flash selection of f/2.0, so I started shooting Av mode at f/5.6 when I take flash photos and everything's been fine.

Cheers,

Don

Sorry Don, this is really my fault.
I just bought 420EX so searched the forum for all data about it and got to live a lot of old posts

AndreyD wrote:
Sorry Don, this is really my fault.
I just bought 420EX so searched the forum for all data about it and got to live a lot of old posts

Hi Andrey... no apologies necessary. I was joking, of course. Information on flash photography is always welcome and necessary -- people are buying new flashes all the time. And there's a lot to be said for having that information in just a few threads, rather than hundreds.

Cheers,

Don

Don Ellis wrote:
Too funny on the date... thanks for pointing that out. We can blame Andrey for resurrecting this thread.

The shot is from my website, as you probably know. I don't really care for flash photography but sometimes that's the only way you get a photo. I took about six of Peter and realized that five were out of focus, probably due to the camera's flash selection of f/2.0, so I started shooting Av mode at f/5.6 when I take flash photos and everything's been fine.
Cheers,
Don

you got that one shot perfectly Don, as far as I can see
he has lovely eyes and you caught them wonderfully

just mentioned the post (half in jest) as many resurrect old posts and sometimes other members don't realise that it is months old
and (maybe) are watching for a reply of some kind
especially if good advice is added on at a much later date

marie wrote:

you got that one shot perfectly Don, as far as I can see
he has lovely eyes and you caught them wonderfully

just mentioned the post (half in jest) as many resurrect old posts and sometimes other members don't realise that it is months old
and (maybe) are watching for a reply of some kind
especially if good advice is added on at a much later date

Actualy Marie, I did it on puprose, to put new post about things already discussed, and discussed several time ... sometime not a good idea. I first did a search and found that post .... and checked that it's not a year long old - one month, is a short distance
I did my comment there.

AndreyD wrote:
Actualy Marie, I did it on puprose, to put new post about things already discussed, and discussed several time ... sometime not a good idea. I first did a search and found that post .... and checked that it's not a year long old - one month, is a short distance
I did my comment there.

many thanks Andrey
I guessed that
that was never a problem
it was just that the people coming after sometimes don't see the date it was originally posted

not that it really matters a whole lot
except when advice is given and the person who posted has been gone a fair while
they may not reply as the post is 'long dead'
and they would not been watching out for anything new

otherwise

it's all hunky dorey
and great advice