Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

help, black dogs face indistinguishable

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:57:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am new to digital photography/photography. I recently got a Kodak DX6490.
I like it and have gotten what I consider to be some good pictures. But am
having trouble with one of my favorite subjects, my mostly black German
Shepard. It seems no matter which way we face in the sun or inside her
solid black face is too often indistinguishable.

Any tips, advice, rules appreciated.

TIA
Bill
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:57:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<<having trouble with one of my favorite subjects, my mostly black
German Shepard. It seems no matter which way we face in the sun or
inside her solid black face is too often indistinguishable>>

1. use a fill flash
2. in about 30 percent of the cases, your exposure meter will deceive
you. This is one of those occasions. Try over exposing by 1.5. to 2 f
stops.
3. Get a decent book on learning the fundamentals of photography. If it
has a conventional film orientation fine. The basics are the same
whether conventional or digital. The manual that came with your camera
will take care of the mechanics.

davidN
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:57:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"lucky1" <unlucky1@insightbb.com> writes:

> I am new to digital photography/photography. I recently got a Kodak DX6490.
> I like it and have gotten what I consider to be some good pictures. But am
> having trouble with one of my favorite subjects, my mostly black German
> Shepard. It seems no matter which way we face in the sun or inside her
> solid black face is too often indistinguishable.
>
> Any tips, advice, rules appreciated.

Yes, all black dogs (I have two) are a problem. The problem is the camera sees
the blackness, and tries to compensate by under-exposing. I assume your camera
does not have a RAW mode, in which case the only option is to play with the
exposure compensation setting, and using post processing.

If your camera does have RAW mode, this has more levels than are available in
JPEG, and you can select how to convert this to JPEG (ie, you can favor the
darker area bringing out more detail or favor the lighter area).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Related resources
March 19, 2005 6:16:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Add exposure with the exposure compensation adjustment on your camera. Start
with one stop and see what you get. You will probably need more than one
stop, but it is best to avoid going too high.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"lucky1" <unlucky1@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:7GL_d.82078$r55.28985@attbi_s52...
> I am new to digital photography/photography. I recently got a Kodak
DX6490.
> I like it and have gotten what I consider to be some good pictures. But
am
> having trouble with one of my favorite subjects, my mostly black German
> Shepard. It seems no matter which way we face in the sun or inside her
> solid black face is too often indistinguishable.
>
> Any tips, advice, rules appreciated.
>
> TIA
> Bill
>
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:05:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The black dog is the most difficult subject in photography. Not only is the
dog black, but it is furry. It reflects almost no light. The dog is also not
a solid black. There are three problems:

1) The dog must be photographed against a light background, or you will not
be able to see it, but:

2) The light background is likely to cause the black parts of the dog to be
underexposed, or

3) The black dog is likely to cause the background and light parts of the
dog to be overexposed.

As with all dog shots, try to fill the frame as much as possible with the
dog. This will help eliminate distracting background, along with its
attendant exposure problems. Shoot on the dog's level -- get down there on
your knees and be glad he isn't a Scottie. Of course, the moment you do this
the dog is going to run right up to you to stick his nose in your face or
worse, the camera lens.

Try the backlit subject setting if you have one. This works a surprising
amount of the time.

You can try fill flash -- but watch the eyes. Dogs (and many other animals,
including cats) have a third eyelid that is highly reflective; it is why
their eyes glow at night. The usual redeye reduction methods will not work
because it is not redeye. The eyelid does not contract, for example, with a
preliminary flash. Besides, a redeye reduction flash is guaranteed to make
the dog look away. You might have to just bite the bullet and edit the
glowing eyes out later. Also, use diffused or bounce flash. Dogs usually
hate flash and some of them will run from you upon seeing a camera. Another
problem with fill flash is that if the dog has a shiny coat the flash will
reflect on it.

Bracket your exposures, or use a spot meter to expose for the dog. Practice
until you come up with something that works. Digital film is cheap. And then
realize that the settings that are perfect for your black dog will almost
never be even close for your neighbor's Labrador. The key is patience.
Getting a good picture of a black dog is time consuming hard work, but it is
extremely satisfying when you succeed.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:

> The black dog is the most difficult subject in photography.

It's the second most difficult subject.. A dog that's half
pure black and half pure white is a nightmare to expose :-)
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:44:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WOW, thanks for all the feedback. very insightful. yes, I have gotten
several books on digital photography and am digesting slowly as there are so
many situations and so many vairables. a bit overwhelming.

When I add exsposure will it overexpose the background? Is this a damned if
you do, damned if you don't?

Thanks again,
Bill
"lucky1" <unlucky1@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:7GL_d.82078$r55.28985@attbi_s52...
> I am new to digital photography/photography. I recently got a Kodak
DX6490.
> I like it and have gotten what I consider to be some good pictures. But
am
> having trouble with one of my favorite subjects, my mostly black German
> Shepard. It seems no matter which way we face in the sun or inside her
> solid black face is too often indistinguishable.
>
> Any tips, advice, rules appreciated.
>
> TIA
> Bill
>
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:19:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:44:21 GMT, "lucky1" <unlucky1@insightbb.com>
wrote:

>WOW, thanks for all the feedback. very insightful. yes, I have gotten
>several books on digital photography and am digesting slowly as there are so
>many situations and so many vairables. a bit overwhelming.
>
>When I add exsposure will it overexpose the background?

Yes.

If you want the background AND foreground correct, use the fill flash
method.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:19:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> writes:

> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:44:21 GMT, "lucky1" <unlucky1@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
> >WOW, thanks for all the feedback. very insightful. yes, I have gotten
> >several books on digital photography and am digesting slowly as there are so
> >many situations and so many vairables. a bit overwhelming.
> >
> >When I add exsposure will it overexpose the background?
>
> Yes.

Depending on how over-exposed it is, you can reduce the effects somewhat in
post processing.

> If you want the background AND foreground correct, use the fill flash
> method.

I would imagine with fill flash you have the green-eye problem (due to the
difference in the way their eyes are laid out, cats & dogs eyes turn green with
a flash, while humans eyes turn red). Some amount of post processing can fix
this. An external flash can extend the range before the green/red-eye sets in,
but I don't think the Kodak supports an external flash.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
March 19, 2005 7:20:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:44:21 +0000, lucky1 wrote
(in article <pgU_d.85761$Ze3.12208@attbi_s51>):

> WOW, thanks for all the feedback. very insightful. yes, I have gotten
> several books on digital photography and am digesting slowly as there are so
> many situations and so many vairables. a bit overwhelming.
>
> When I add exsposure will it overexpose the background? Is this a damned if
> you do, damned if you don't?

Your camera probably has a flash control button. It allows you to force the
flash to flash even in daylight.

1. Always use the flash when photographing your black dog.

2. If your camera offers an exposure adjustment option, try overexposing a
little (typically the choices are +0.3, 0.6, 1, and more).

3. Center the image in the viewfinder on the black of the dog and press the
shutter button half-way down. This locks the exposure on the black.

4. While holding the button down half-way, re-frame the photo the way you
want it (ie, if you don't want the dog in the middle of the photo, point the
camera where you want it).

This will, unfortunately, frequently overexpose other areas of the photo that
are not dark. That's due to the difference between the way our eyes and
cameras render a scene, and the nature of photography.

Some improvement in this difference can be accomplished in a post-processing
computer program such as Photoshop.

Good luck,
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:41:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> Yes, all black dogs (I have two) are a problem. The problem is the camera sees
> the blackness, and tries to compensate by under-exposing. I assume your camera
>
> --
> Michael Meissner

'Fraid not, Michael. The camera will tend to overexpose dark objects.
The meter is calibrated to render an average subject as 18% gray, and it
will try to render the dog's face as 18% gray. The problem is the
surrounding area, particularly if fairly light-colored, will increase a
general meter reading, thereby underexposing the dog. Spot reading on
the dog and decreasing exposure by a stop or two should do it.

Black animals generally are hard to photograph. What you are actually
doing is catching the shine from the hair, which delineates the animal,
leaving the non-shiny bits very dark, or black.

Colin
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:41:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
> Michael Meissner wrote:
>>
>> Yes, all black dogs (I have two) are a problem. The problem is the
>> camera sees the blackness, and tries to compensate by
>> under-exposing. I assume your camera
>>
>> --
>> Michael Meissner
>
> 'Fraid not, Michael. The camera will tend to overexpose dark objects.
> The meter is calibrated to render an average subject as 18% gray, and
> it
> will try to render the dog's face as 18% gray. The problem is the
> surrounding area, particularly if fairly light-colored, will increase
> a
> general meter reading, thereby underexposing the dog. Spot reading on
> the dog and decreasing exposure by a stop or two should do it.
>
> Black animals generally are hard to photograph. What you are actually
> doing is catching the shine from the hair, which delineates the
> animal,
> leaving the non-shiny bits very dark, or black.
>


If you use a polarizer, shiny black dogs disappear entirely.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:41:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:

> Michael Meissner wrote:
> >
> > Yes, all black dogs (I have two) are a problem. The problem is the camera sees
> > the blackness, and tries to compensate by under-exposing. I assume your camera
> >
> > --
> > Michael Meissner
>
> 'Fraid not, Michael. The camera will tend to overexpose dark objects.
> The meter is calibrated to render an average subject as 18% gray, and it
> will try to render the dog's face as 18% gray. The problem is the
> surrounding area, particularly if fairly light-colored, will increase a
> general meter reading, thereby underexposing the dog. Spot reading on
> the dog and decreasing exposure by a stop or two should do it.

Ok, I guessed wrong whether it was under-exposing or over-exposing. Thanks.

> Black animals generally are hard to photograph. What you are actually
> doing is catching the shine from the hair, which delineates the animal,
> leaving the non-shiny bits very dark, or black.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:41:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:20:51 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
wrote:

>Colin D wrote:
>> Michael Meissner wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, all black dogs (I have two) are a problem. The problem is the
>>> camera sees the blackness, and tries to compensate by
>>> under-exposing. I assume your camera
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Meissner
>>
>> 'Fraid not, Michael. The camera will tend to overexpose dark objects.
>> The meter is calibrated to render an average subject as 18% gray, and
>> it
>> will try to render the dog's face as 18% gray. The problem is the
>> surrounding area, particularly if fairly light-colored, will increase
>> a
>> general meter reading, thereby underexposing the dog. Spot reading on
>> the dog and decreasing exposure by a stop or two should do it.
>>
>> Black animals generally are hard to photograph. What you are actually
>> doing is catching the shine from the hair, which delineates the
>> animal,
>> leaving the non-shiny bits very dark, or black.
>>
>
>
>If you use a polarizer, shiny black dogs disappear entirely.
>
And if you use a Cat lens, they will attack the camera.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:41:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:20:51 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Colin D wrote:
>>> Michael Meissner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, all black dogs (I have two) are a problem. The problem is the
>>>> camera sees the blackness, and tries to compensate by
>>>> under-exposing. I assume your camera
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Meissner
>>>
>>> 'Fraid not, Michael. The camera will tend to overexpose dark
>>> objects. The meter is calibrated to render an average subject as
>>> 18% gray, and it
>>> will try to render the dog's face as 18% gray. The problem is the
>>> surrounding area, particularly if fairly light-colored, will
>>> increase a
>>> general meter reading, thereby underexposing the dog. Spot reading
>>> on the dog and decreasing exposure by a stop or two should do it.
>>>
>>> Black animals generally are hard to photograph. What you are
>>> actually doing is catching the shine from the hair, which
>>> delineates the animal,
>>> leaving the non-shiny bits very dark, or black.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If you use a polarizer, shiny black dogs disappear entirely.
>>
> And if you use a Cat lens, they will attack the camera.

I'd forgotten about that. Trauma-induced memory loss, no doubt. "My dog
ate the camera". Just two-thirds of it: somthing about "internalizing
the rules".


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:41:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
> Big Bill wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:20:51 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin D wrote:
>>>> Michael Meissner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, all black dogs (I have two) are a problem. The problem is
>>>>> the camera sees the blackness, and tries to compensate by
>>>>> under-exposing. I assume your camera
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Michael Meissner
>>>>
>>>> 'Fraid not, Michael. The camera will tend to overexpose dark
>>>> objects. The meter is calibrated to render an average subject as
>>>> 18% gray, and it
>>>> will try to render the dog's face as 18% gray. The problem is the
>>>> surrounding area, particularly if fairly light-colored, will
>>>> increase a
>>>> general meter reading, thereby underexposing the dog. Spot reading
>>>> on the dog and decreasing exposure by a stop or two should do it.
>>>>
>>>> Black animals generally are hard to photograph. What you are
>>>> actually doing is catching the shine from the hair, which
>>>> delineates the animal,
>>>> leaving the non-shiny bits very dark, or black.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you use a polarizer, shiny black dogs disappear entirely.
>>>
>> And if you use a Cat lens, they will attack the camera.
>
> I'd forgotten about that. Trauma-induced memory loss, no doubt. "My
> dog ate the camera". Just two-thirds of it: somthing about
> "internalizing the rules".

PS: Not all dog pictures have to be explicit and detailed overall
http://www.fototime.com/2C1348A65F44A19/orig.jpg
nor neat and clean
http://www.fototime.com/74B52B093D2ACC4/orig.jpg
nor even intelligible (CP995)
http://www.fototime.com/5D645419D962B5C/orig.jpg
(speaking of green-eye) though they might come through with a bit of
Photo Shop and crop
http://www.fototime.com/CDE634F124A2E9B/orig.jpg


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:18:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"lucky1" <unlucky1@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:7GL_d.82078$r55.28985@attbi_s52...
>I am new to digital photography/photography. I recently got a Kodak
>DX6490.
> I like it and have gotten what I consider to be some good pictures. But
> am
> having trouble with one of my favorite subjects, my mostly black German
> Shepard. It seems no matter which way we face in the sun or inside her
> solid black face is too often indistinguishable.
>
> Any tips, advice, rules appreciated.
>
> TIA
> Bill
>
>

I had the same problem with my previous camera which was a digital point and
shoot - an Epson 3100Z. I have a Canon 20D and the following two shots are
fairly good at capturing the dog's features. I did quite a bit of
manipulation with PS CS. The gray on the dog's face is probably a factor.

http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/40984299

http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/40984300

You still have to have the right background and I found that a dark area is
best.

Don
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:47:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

well, did he/she get sprayed?.....yikes


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:ipmdnc82kaQ-96HfRVn-hg@giganews.com...
> Frank ess wrote:
> > Big Bill wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:20:51 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Colin D wrote:
> >>>> Michael Meissner wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, all black dogs (I have two) are a problem. The problem is
> >>>>> the camera sees the blackness, and tries to compensate by
> >>>>> under-exposing. I assume your camera
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Michael Meissner
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Fraid not, Michael. The camera will tend to overexpose dark
> >>>> objects. The meter is calibrated to render an average subject as
> >>>> 18% gray, and it
> >>>> will try to render the dog's face as 18% gray. The problem is the
> >>>> surrounding area, particularly if fairly light-colored, will
> >>>> increase a
> >>>> general meter reading, thereby underexposing the dog. Spot reading
> >>>> on the dog and decreasing exposure by a stop or two should do it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Black animals generally are hard to photograph. What you are
> >>>> actually doing is catching the shine from the hair, which
> >>>> delineates the animal,
> >>>> leaving the non-shiny bits very dark, or black.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If you use a polarizer, shiny black dogs disappear entirely.
> >>>
> >> And if you use a Cat lens, they will attack the camera.
> >
> > I'd forgotten about that. Trauma-induced memory loss, no doubt. "My
> > dog ate the camera". Just two-thirds of it: somthing about
> > "internalizing the rules".
>
> PS: Not all dog pictures have to be explicit and detailed overall
> http://www.fototime.com/2C1348A65F44A19/orig.jpg
> nor neat and clean
> http://www.fototime.com/74B52B093D2ACC4/orig.jpg
> nor even intelligible (CP995)
> http://www.fototime.com/5D645419D962B5C/orig.jpg
> (speaking of green-eye) though they might come through with a bit of
> Photo Shop and crop
> http://www.fototime.com/CDE634F124A2E9B/orig.jpg
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>
March 20, 2005 2:06:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:

> An external flash can extend the range before the green/red-eye sets in,
> but I don't think the Kodak supports an external flash.

*Any* camera with an internal flash will "support" an external flash:
http://tinyurl.com/5jvqm


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:51:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> writes:

> Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> > An external flash can extend the range before the green/red-eye sets in,
> > but I don't think the Kodak supports an external flash.
>
> *Any* camera with an internal flash will "support" an external flash:
> http://tinyurl.com/5jvqm

But as I said in an earlier article, you have to be able to adjust your
camera's settings (turn down flash intensity, use aperture priority or manual
modes), since it doesn't realize the slave flash is going to be firing at the
same time, and some of the simpler cameras don't give you those controls.
Also, I vaguelly recall that Kodak cameras were one of the digital cameras that
don't do a preflash, in which case you need the slaves for film cameras
instead.

Note, slave flashes don't work too well when you are using them in situations
that other photographers are present, such as at weddings.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:24:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings Mike,

Actually, the Kodak 6490, 7590, and z7590 all allow external flash. Great
cameras for such creative work. With a good flash you will capture a much
greater range as flash extends the range of the camera.

http://www.kodak.com/go/dx7590

Talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company





"Michael Meissner" <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote in message
news:m3br9ae7p8.fsf@glinda.the-meissners.org...
> Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > Michael Meissner wrote:
> >
> > > An external flash can extend the range before the green/red-eye sets
in,
> > > but I don't think the Kodak supports an external flash.
> >
> > *Any* camera with an internal flash will "support" an external flash:
> > http://tinyurl.com/5jvqm
>
> But as I said in an earlier article, you have to be able to adjust your
> camera's settings (turn down flash intensity, use aperture priority or
manual
> modes), since it doesn't realize the slave flash is going to be firing at
the
> same time, and some of the simpler cameras don't give you those controls.
> Also, I vaguelly recall that Kodak cameras were one of the digital cameras
that
> don't do a preflash, in which case you need the slaves for film cameras
> instead.
>
> Note, slave flashes don't work too well when you are using them in
situations
> that other photographers are present, such as at weddings.
>
> --
> Michael Meissner
> email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
> http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:40:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> writes:

> Greetings Mike,
>
> Actually, the Kodak 6490, 7590, and z7590 all allow external flash. Great
> cameras for such creative work. With a good flash you will capture a much
> greater range as flash extends the range of the camera.
>
> http://www.kodak.com/go/dx7590
>
> Talk to you soon.
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company

Thanks for the update. I knew some models had flash, but I wasn't sure which
was which.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
March 25, 2005 3:00:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:

>>*Any* camera with an internal flash will "support" an external flash:

> But as I said in an earlier article, you have to be able to adjust your
> camera's settings (turn down flash intensity, use aperture priority or manual
> modes), since it doesn't realize the slave flash is going to be firing at the
> same time, and some of the simpler cameras don't give you those controls.

When I finally got around to buying a digital the one absolute requirement was manual
control. I really don't see how to live without it unless you only aspire to taking
snapshots.

That said, if you know what you're doing you can still take some control from a fully
automatic camera. A diffuser or deflector (which can be as simple as your hand) can
reduce or eliminate exposure from the onboard flash while still triggering a slaved
unit. Choosing between different strobes, varying distance, or using bounce flash
should allow you to get the exposure you want even if the camera is fully automatic.
It might be a pain in the ass, but if you don't have manual control it may be all you
have to work with.

When I was shopping for a camera I concluded that $300 was the entry price for manual
control, but given the electronic control and a motor for autofocus I don't see that
it should actually cost much to provide manual capability. It's ironic that auto
capability used to cost more and now you have to pay for manual.


> Also, I vaguelly recall that Kodak cameras were one of the digital cameras that
> don't do a preflash, in which case you need the slaves for film cameras
> instead.

I've already got several of those. At least digital slaves save me the expense of
buying digital strobes.

> Note, slave flashes don't work too well when you are using them in situations
> that other photographers are present, such as at weddings.

Maybe the problem is that they work too well. I've been roped into weddings, but
fortunately I've only done 3. The slave issue wasn't a problem, but if I frequently
shot at places with other photographers I'd probably have radio slaves.

Where it has been a problem for me, is caving. Since it's always dark, all of your
companions have lights and the few who have cameras are obviously going to use a
flash. The only digital slave I have so far is a Wein hot shoe slave that isn't
filtered for daylight use, though I'm not sure if that would make a difference. Being
sensitive it will fire when somebody looks towards it while wearing a headlamp as
well as when somebody else's flash goes off. On a recent trip where I took about 130
shots I think the flash fired several hundred times. Usually while I was looking at
it, of course. I've been meaning to check with Wein to see if any of their models
react to a high slew rate as opposed to just intensity.



--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
!