It might be worth trying the old exposure compensation trick that people used on the MZ-S. If you are shooting in manual exposure mode anyway it may not be too tricky - just set the exposure compensation on the body to the value you want the exposure compensation applied to the flash. The exposure on the body will not change because it is in manual (duh!) but the flash output in TTL would. Worth a try anyway...
If I were shooting weddings I would not even consider shooting anything other than RAW when doing digital. Some Wedding Photogs have even switched back to film because digital just doesn't have the lattitude of a negative and you have to deal with the extreme contract of fine detail on a white dress and avoiding blocking on black suits. Whatever it takes to enable you to shoot RAW, I would do it - or go back to film. Buy a flashtrax would be ideal if you cannot carry your laptop, or maybe get one (or more) of those Muvo MP3 players with a free 4Gb Microdrive inside. If you have Photoshop CS (I am sure you said you did) then try taking some images with burnt highlights and see how much it can recover. When I got CS I was amazed how much highlight info could be retrieved - much more than the Pentax Photo Lab which was better than JPG itself! Ideally you should look at lighting without using flash for these shoots - Bruce was right on the button with his advice & setups based on what I understand from reading around. Unfortunately I guess you wont have an assistant available and I am sure it would take some time to try out and perfect the techniques. Might be worth telling the Agency to put the 'most important' kids at either end of the day explaining that the lighting will be better as there is only so much that can be done to minimise harsh midday sun. Failing all this then I think mapson is right that you are better to risk underexposure - there is a lot you can drag out of the shadows in digital with contrast techniques. Fingers crossed for you. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 March 2004 13:23 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: omg - i have my foot in the door (but now I am scared)... > > > > Hi everyone, > > Thanks so much for advice and suggestions... > > Firstly to Anthony - I am so sorry to have put you through > that! lol. I was about to post and say to you that the > thumbnails are only 2k in size and I went to my server to > realise that I had uploaded the large images into the > thumbnail gallery! And also to anyone else who tried to view > those pages, what a nightmare it would have been! BUT, I can > confidently say that I have fixed it now and that the > thumbnails are indeed 2kb in size with the large images > ranging between 18kb and 50kb each...! > > Next to Bruce - I probably should have explained a little > better. My AF360fgz is still in the repair shop since my > little tripod accident a few weeks back. I have been > shooting with the Sigma EF 430st and the Sigma EF 500st. > Like Bill Robb, I gave up shooting TTL with the *ist D about > five minutes after I received it and have been shooting using > M mode (manual > exposure) and just using the flash as fill. This is tough > with these two Sigma flash guns as you only have the option > of either full (mh), 1/16th > (ml) or ttl. So half the time, if I use MH I get too much > output, and the other half, if I use ML, I get too little. > > Yes, I did shoot high res jpegs for that particular wedding, > as at this stage I only have 2gbs worth of CF cards in total. > What I have been doing is switching to RAW where I think > that an image needs help or if I expect it to be enlarged > alot, but unfortunately, when shooting on location, quickly, > at a wedding, it is very difficult for me to shoot RAW and > continuously download pics to my laptop. For all of my > portrait and other work I am shooting only RAW, but with > weddings it just takes up too much room.... > > I have the camera set to low contrast and low saturation. > Bruce you asked what my flash settings on the camera were? I > am unsure of the answer to this? I didn't know that I could > control the flash from my camera? Are you talking exposure > compensation? Cause if that is the case, there is none as I > was shooting with the flash manually rather than TTL. I hope > this is making sense...lol. > > A few of you have suggsted that for this shoot at least, I > should go back to shooting the film as I know it and the > cameras better. BUT, I really want to "stick at it" as I am > sure there are ways to get around the problems that I am > having and secondly, one of the reasons I got this shoot in > the first place was my ability to shoot it digitally and > offer them proofs almost immediately. Also, I loathe the > thought of having a $2k camera that is sitting there > collecting dust, I really want this thing to earn its keep > and so I must learn how to use it properly... > > Heaps more to come, but just gotta wade through the rest of > the responses, I had a shoot this afternoon too, so working > on those at the moment... > > brb, hooroo (love that Trevor! lol), > > tan. > > >
