Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 17, 2008, 7:49 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3
Default

My daughter's wedding picture by a professional photographer turned our very dark, almost black, during the service. After and before they were acceptable, but conditions were not low-light as during the service.

Our photographer said he was perplexed by the dark pictures and said that he took the camera to two photo dealers. They said the images were corrupted because the pastor used a wireless transmitter during the service.

I can't accept this as factual, because while I could possibly understand the images from the camera to a remote server being corrupted, why would the images on the digital card be corrupted? I would think that the card would not be susceptible to corruption from these low-intensity waves.

Anyone ever hear of such problems? I would appreciate the insights.
go10go4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 17, 2008, 7:58 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

That's a new one on me...

Do you have any of the pics you could post here?

the Hun

rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2008, 8:29 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

I have heard of RF interference to digital cameras, though it usually take the form of image distortion rather than just darkness. I would probably want to try to duplicate the conditions to see if the same results occurred.

To tell the truth, this post activated my BS detector. The greater probability is that the photographer missed getting his settings correct. Is it possible that he was using flash before and after, but was prohibited from flash during the ceremony? Or could the before and after shots have been taken outside in better light?



brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2008, 2:10 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Hi and welcome to Steve's,

Sorry that it is such an issue that has brought you here but hope you find the assistance youneed.

Never heard of it and never experienced it and I've shot in many churches as well as concerts etc where wireless mics, laptop control etc are being used and I'vehad no issues.

It sounds to me like a blunder either on the photog or cameras part. How this happens in the world of digital I don't know. When I'm shooting a wedding I'm always keeping an eye on my shots to ensure I'm getting a good exposure especially when it comes to blown highlights. Under exposed shots would stick out like a sore thumb.

As for posting photos here, make sure that you are not posting something that is copyright otherwise you could open yourself up to problems if discovered by the photographer.

As wedding photogs we will all have had to shoot in dark holes sometimes but if someone is a pro as mentioned then they should have the bodies and lenses to handle these situations and work around them so they still get properly exposed shots.

Mark
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2008, 7:57 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

I agree with Brian - sounds like BS to me. Ask him for a copy of the digital file of one of those photos *WITH EXIF DATA*. That is likely to show he had the camera at manual settings appropriate for flash - something like ISO 200, f/8, 1/100 sec. The EXIF data from a photo taken just before might confirm that he simply turned off the flash but did not change any other settings.

Of course it is possible to change the EXIF data.

If there is anything showing in those photos, it should be possible to rescue some high noise images suitable for at least small prints or web use.

In any case, you should get something from him for the lack of those photos. A refund of part of the fee or extra prints would be reasonable.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2008, 9:09 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3
Default

I haven't tried to post photos before. Hope this attachment works. Should show the extremely low-light condition of the photos. This is one of the better ones. Most came out darker; some were almost completely black. \

I just can't buy into the card corruption theory. Mainly because the photos (ones that aren't completely black) have discernible images in them; it's just that the photos are just plain flat out dark. That would seem to me (a definite amateur) to be a camera settings issue, not a card corruption issue.
Attached Images
 
go10go4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2008, 9:11 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3
Default

Another example of what I referred to previously.
Attached Images
 
go10go4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2008, 11:55 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Curious. Opening the images with PhotoME shows that the pics were taken in full auto program with external flash, which fired. Shutter speed of 1/60s at ISO 400.

Someone with more specific knowledge of how Canon flash system works might be able to give better info, but it seems that the camera thought there was an external flash attached and fired it, but there wasn't a flash. Could be that if flash was switched off, but left on the hotshoe, the camera would still try to use it with these kinds of results. There is no guide # shown in PhotoME, so it is pretty obvious that flash did not fire. Maybe the flash batteries were low and it didn't have the flash ready when he took these shots?

Only other explanation I can come up with offhand is that he was using a radio trigger for an off-camera flash, and the remote mike interfered with it. Far-fetched maybe but odd things do happen.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2008, 2:06 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

I had almost the same thing happen to me, the EXIF data stated that the flash fired but the pictures were darker than they should have been for using as flash. Problem was the batteries in the flash were too weak to flash but strong enough to work the LCD (my flash is, EX580 II) and send a false signal to the camera. Which also explains why no one companied about the flash in their face. Another point is that almost every place you go there is a wireless mike being used and their pictures are coming out just fine. Being in Ham Radio for years I am very use to RF interference and I the pictures you posted do not look like they had any RF interference at all. If that is the case that RF ruin the picturesand wireless mikes are in the same band as the wireless flashes a lot of photographers use, when how do they get good pictures using wireless flashes.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22 AM.