What's this???
Oct 15, 2019 23:25:40 #
What's this??? Splotchy!! I took this photo and had two speedlights helping out. I had these settings on my Canon 6D with a 24-105mm lens: 1/50 sec, F9, ISO 1250. My image stabilizer was off since the camera was on a tripod. Was my ISO set to high? I shot the photos in RAW with jpgs.
I know several of you out there in UHH land know exactly what I did wrong.......please share with me so I don't do this again!
I know several of you out there in UHH land know exactly what I did wrong.......please share with me so I don't do this again!
Oct 15, 2019 23:36:44 #
This is very strange. I own the Canon 6D and it performs well at high ISOs and 1250 is not high by any means. Can you post the JPG version of that image? Or if you prefer you can use a program like "We Transfer" to send the original unprocessed RAW file to me.
Oct 16, 2019 00:03:51 #
Oct 16, 2019 00:08:06 #
rcarol wrote:
This is very strange. I own the Canon 6D and it performs well at high ISOs and 1250 is not high by any means. Can you post the JPG version of that image? Or if you prefer you can use a program like "We Transfer" to send the original unprocessed RAW file to me.
Here's the jpg of the photo. For some reason it seems very underexposed. I can't figure this whole thing out.
Oct 16, 2019 00:10:11 #
Apparently a sensor malfunction... perhaps to overheating. Were you using repeated burst mode at the time?
Oct 16, 2019 00:16:31 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Apparently a sensor malfunction... perhaps to overheating. Were you using repeated burst mode at the time?
No overheating (at night indoors), and no burst mode. I had the camera set up with two speedlights that needed a few seconds to charge up after each shot.
Oct 16, 2019 01:05:41 #
That looks like “really high” ISO noise. You know your way around the camera so that is not the answer.
I’m sorry but I too have had isolated incidents where artifacts appear in digital photos. Maybe it is the digital version of UFOs in the film era.
Some thoughts: (1) I am sorry this happened; (2) keep an eye on this, if it repeats and becomes more common it is likely a hardware problem; (3) If it doesn’t repeat chalk it up to the randomness that exists within our universe.
I’m sorry but I too have had isolated incidents where artifacts appear in digital photos. Maybe it is the digital version of UFOs in the film era.
Some thoughts: (1) I am sorry this happened; (2) keep an eye on this, if it repeats and becomes more common it is likely a hardware problem; (3) If it doesn’t repeat chalk it up to the randomness that exists within our universe.
Oct 16, 2019 01:06:06 #
BrentHarder wrote:
No overheating (at night indoors), and no burst mode. I had the camera set up with two speedlights that needed a few seconds to charge up after each shot.
I downloaded your JPG and I processed it the best I could and I have included it as an attachment. First, the image is very much underexposed and I wonder if your speed lights fired. I looked for the EXIF file but you did not include it in the download so I couldn't verify whether they did or not. I looked for catch lights in the eyes and I saw none leading me to believe your speed lights did not fire. If I had the original RAW file I might be able to extract more information.
Oct 16, 2019 02:40:17 #
rcarol wrote:
I downloaded your JPG and I processed it the best I could and I have included it as an attachment. First, the image is very much underexposed and I wonder if your speed lights fired. I looked for the EXIF file but you did not include it in the download so I couldn't verify whether they did or not. I looked for catch lights in the eyes and I saw none leading me to believe your speed lights did not fire. If I had the original RAW file I might be able to extract more information.
Thanks rcarol for your efforts on this, I appreciate it.
Oct 16, 2019 02:46:32 #
BrentHarder wrote:
Thanks rcarol for your efforts on this, I appreciate it.
I really wish there was more that I could do.
Oct 16, 2019 02:59:18 #
BrentHarder wrote:
What's this??? Splotchy!! I took this photo and had two speedlights helping out. I had these settings on my Canon 6D with a 24-105mm lens: 1/50 sec, F9, ISO 1250. My image stabilizer was off since the camera was on a tripod. Was my ISO set to high? I shot the photos in RAW with jpgs.
I know several of you out there in UHH land know exactly what I did wrong.......please share with me so I don't do this again!
I know several of you out there in UHH land know exactly what I did wrong.......please share with me so I don't do this again!
The image is severely underexposed as already mentioned and in opening in ACR much of the 'blacks' have RGB values of almost 0. I suspect it is the artifacts from trying to pull something out from areas where there is literally no data.
With the image opened in ACR and with the Colour Noise reduced by 100% this removes the colour from the artifacts when the shadows are pulled out.
According to the Exif, the flash did not fire.
Oct 16, 2019 03:26:20 #
I have read some of the posts. I used to use a 6D
With flash the SS syncs at 1/180 and the ISO is supposed to be 400. The only way to use your settings is on high speed sync.
It looks like HSS wasn't on and the flash didn't sync with the shutter (probably went off before the shutter opened or not at all) so you were very under exposed.
I used to do shots at 12,800, f/4 at about 1/60 and no flash indoors that looked way better than this. Then I bought a flash.
With flash the SS syncs at 1/180 and the ISO is supposed to be 400. The only way to use your settings is on high speed sync.
It looks like HSS wasn't on and the flash didn't sync with the shutter (probably went off before the shutter opened or not at all) so you were very under exposed.
I used to do shots at 12,800, f/4 at about 1/60 and no flash indoors that looked way better than this. Then I bought a flash.
Oct 16, 2019 03:55:15 #
robertjerl wrote:
I have read some of the posts. I used to use a 6D
With flash the SS syncs at 1/180 and the ISO is supposed to be 400. The only way to use your settings is on high speed sync.
It looks like HSS wasn't on and the flash didn't sync with the shutter (probably went off before the shutter opened or not at all) so you were very under exposed.
I used to do shots at 12,800, f/4 at about 1/60 and no flash indoors that looked way better than this. Then I bought a flash.
With flash the SS syncs at 1/180 and the ISO is supposed to be 400. The only way to use your settings is on high speed sync.
It looks like HSS wasn't on and the flash didn't sync with the shutter (probably went off before the shutter opened or not at all) so you were very under exposed.
I used to do shots at 12,800, f/4 at about 1/60 and no flash indoors that looked way better than this. Then I bought a flash.
I'm confused, the Exif confirms that the OP had the camera set in manual, 1/50s, f9, ISO1250 which would not require HSS. It also shows the flash did not fire.
Oct 16, 2019 04:19:53 #
Pablo8
Loc: Nottingham UK.
Just looking at the jpeg picture, it looks like weak top light only, as though the flash did not fire / synch with the shutter. Did you not check after shooting?
Oct 16, 2019 04:31:33 #
BrentHarder wrote:
Here's the jpg of the photo. For some reason it seems very underexposed. I can't figure this whole thing out.
Sorry there is not enough data in the shadows to make the image better. I think your flash did not fire at all. There are no catchlight in their eyes nor in the glasses they are wearing.
This is the best i can do without blowing the whites and staircase the shadows.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.