art pear Loc: North Dakota

Bummer

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

It's simply too underexposed and everyone is wearing black. Noise hides in the shadows especially if underexposed. I am beginning to wonder if your speedlites worked. It shouldn't have been this dark with speedlites. Didn't you take a few photos of the group before letting them disperse? I always take several photos, and I always check the LCD to see if the first one looks properly exposed.

Try uploading the CR2 image and maybe we can do something with that. Jpgs are only 8-bit and don't have enough data to work with.

Toby

Bret looks like ISO noise but I am sure you will get a more detailed answer from someone else. By the way I love this photo because after watching all of your photos especially the surfing ones I didn't think you ever took a bad one. Welcome to the regulars club.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The flashes failed to fire (you mention using two) for some reason. Maybe the flash was recycling or off-camera flash communication was interrupted.

Massively under-exposed image then was "corrected" in post-processing... This is what made the dark clothing "get blotchy". Probably the entire image is blotchy, but it isn't obvious in the lighter tonalities, the way it is in the dark clothing.

Low Budget Dave

It looks like a good pose and a good angle. Wallen and others have already suggested some great post-processing tips.

This is a good picture to demonstrate the fact that raising the exposure in post-processing is roughly the same thing as increasing the ISO: It multiplies the "sensitivity" of the sensor. So if you take an underexposed picture at ISO 1600 (or so), it is roughly the same thing as a properly exposed picture at ISO 3200 (or so)

I have no idea about John Sh's comment on shutter speed. That is something I will hve to experiment with on my own.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Why would you have ISO set at 1250. Looks like a 100 scene to me.

BrentHarder Loc: Southern California

This looks about as good as could be expected Wallen........thanks for your efforts.

BrentHarder Loc: Southern California

Now I feel rather foolish after reading all of your efforts in trying to solve my problems with these photos. I didn’t put it together until several of you good UHH members mentioned the flash not firing.........there were a few times during the shoot when the speed lights did not fire or fired after the shutter went off. I didn’t think that was the problem since the photos were properly exposed, just splotchy. Now I’m thinking the camera tried to properly expose the images but without the proper light had to automatically bump up the ISO to compensate. That’s my guess anyway. Sound logical?

I appreciate you taking the time and efforts to try to solve this for me.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The foolish question is the one not asked!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

The flash did not synchronize or it the aperture was incorrectly set for the output and distance of the flash- probably the former. LOOK AT THE LIGHTING! There is no light in the eyes, no catch-lights in any of the eyes, and no reflections in eyeglasses. Look at the shadows on the floor- it is obvious that the lighting is coming from directly overhead. If you had one operating speedlight on the camera there woud be some light in the eyes and an off-camera second light woud have caused a kinda diagonal shadow on the floor. Unless the second light was placed way too high and the on-camera light did no fire, it seems the most dominant main source of lightng is coming form the existing lights in or on the ceiling. A similar effect coud occur from flash light bounced off the ceiling and combined with underexposure.

Perhaps the camera was set for an automatic program and automatically set the white balance for the existing light but somehow there was underexposure.

Hopeful, there is nothg wrong with the camera such as a malfunction, a dirty lens or sensor or some othere defect and this is just a one-off occurrence.

If it looked good on the camera's LCD screen- there could be a defect in the card?

With large groups like this, it is a good practice to "chimp" and check everything out before dismissing the folks.

Nicholas DeSciose

Obviously the flash fired he has the picture to prove it. First image on this post

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

What evidence do you have that says the flash fired? It did NOT fire, according to the EXIF data.

PhotosBySteve

I've had those same exact results when I have tried to bring up the shadows in post, when they were underexposed. If the detail is not captured such as your example, it cannot be recovered.

pv3977 Loc: San Diego

It seems your flash controller failed. It caused a delay to trigger the 2 flashes. The flashes triggered late. They triggered as evidence by the shadows

Toment Loc: FL, IL

JimPops looked pretty good as a salvage
i tried dodge and burn tool in Luminar to lighten the faces
Definitely underexposed due to no flash

(Download)