Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / November 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Why Did This Happen (After the Roof Fell In)?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
digitalrube@yahoo.com - 17 Nov 2006 10:51 GMT
There was a tempest on the East Coast last night.  I got in after
taking whatever pictures I could with m new Digital Rebel 400D to find
an upper story linen closet with its own new ceiling-level faucet.

After ripping everything apart to locate the drip in the roof, I tried
vainly to take pictures of the leaking plywood for the roofer.  I must
have tried at least a hundred times, in AutoFocus, and kept getting
"Busy."  The shutter speed "light" in the viewfinder kept "beeping,"
the aperture number kept going up and down, the exposure compensation
number kept flashing...

I was in a state of panic of course, and tried to take photos in Manual
as well (so I can't say for sure what beeping/flashing/going up and
down occurred during which Shooting Mode), but I *do* know for sure
that even though the Flash tried to engage in AutoFocus, the camera
simply would not take more than three photographs and kept saying Busy.

The only elements of the "composition" (ha!) I can think of that would
be pertinent--if indeed any are--are: 1) I was standing in a dark
closet (totally dark), standing on a ladder pointing the camera up at
2) a point where a bare light bulb illuminating the crawl space attic
was adjacent to 3) the prodigious leak.

I thought that if I kept the camera *out* of range of the glare of the
bare bulb, the flash might engage.  It didn't.  Then I thought that if
I kept the camera *in* the glare, the flash would engage.  It didn't.

So--  In Caps--  WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID I DO TO KEEP THIS CAMERA SO
"BUSY?"
Mike Russell - 17 Nov 2006 11:53 GMT
> There was a tempest on the East Coast last night.  I got in after
> taking whatever pictures I could with m new Digital Rebel 400D to find
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> So--  In Caps--  WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID I DO TO KEEP THIS CAMERA SO
> "BUSY?"

One guess is that you were taking raw or tiff images, your flash card was
slow, and it was taking a long time to transfer the images from the camera
to the flash card.
Signature


Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

digitalrube@yahoo.com - 17 Nov 2006 14:43 GMT
On Nov 17, 6:53 am, "Mike Russell"

> One guess is that you were taking raw or tiff images, your flash card was
> slow, and it was taking a long time to transfer the images from the camera
> to the flash card.

No, I was taking jpeg photos.
Tom Ross - 17 Nov 2006 19:00 GMT
>On Nov 17, 6:53 am, "Mike Russell"
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>No, I was taking jpeg photos.

I've had similar problems taking low-light flash photos of a flat,
blank surface. The pre-flash will fire and the lens will try to focus,
but the shutter will not trip. Sometimes it would show BUSY, other
times it wouldn't.

I assume it has something to do with the Auto-Focus not being able to
focus. Something similar occurs when the subject is closer than the
minimum focusing distance. The "problem' goes away when I switched to
manual focus.

TR
chrisu - 17 Nov 2006 15:25 GMT
> There was a tempest on the East Coast last night.  I got in after
> taking whatever pictures I could with m new Digital Rebel 400D to find
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> So--  In Caps--  WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID I DO TO KEEP THIS CAMERA SO
> "BUSY?"

plonk
digitalrube@yahoo.com - 17 Nov 2006 16:24 GMT
Hey ChrisU FANBOY--  Go w.nk off with your lens cap.
Bill Funk - 17 Nov 2006 20:25 GMT
>There was a tempest on the East Coast last night.  I got in after
>taking whatever pictures I could with m new Digital Rebel 400D to find
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>So--  In Caps--  WHAT IN GOD'S NAME DID I DO TO KEEP THIS CAMERA SO
>"BUSY?"

I will hazzard a guess that, assuming the roof wasn't too close to
focus on, there wasn't enough contrast in the image to focus properly
on.
Signature

Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

digitalrube@yahoo.com - 17 Nov 2006 22:14 GMT
> I will hazzard a guess that, assuming the roof wasn't too close to
> focus on, there wasn't enough contrast in the image to focus properly
> on.

I'm concerned I somehow harmed the camera...
Joan - 18 Nov 2006 02:17 GMT
Has it worked since?

Signature

Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

: > I will hazzard a guess that, assuming the roof wasn't too close to
: > focus on, there wasn't enough contrast in the image to focus properly
: > on.
:
: I'm concerned I somehow harmed the camera...
digitalrube@yahoo.com - 18 Nov 2006 11:01 GMT
> Has it worked since?

Ha!  I deserved that one.  I haven't tried it.  I'm busy repairing
storm damage.  Another poster suggested what the problem *might* be,
but because this camera is so new, I'm calling Canon today to find out
why this ever should have been an issue with an instrument supposedly
so sensitive.
Bill Funk - 18 Nov 2006 14:31 GMT
>> Has it worked since?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>why this ever should have been an issue with an instrument supposedly
>so sensitive.

If I were you, before I called Canon, I'd check to see if something is
actually wrong with the camera.
You don't seem to be interested in knowing this; why not?
Signature

Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Mike Fields - 18 Nov 2006 20:15 GMT
>> Has it worked since?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> why this ever should have been an issue with an instrument supposedly
> so sensitive.

While waiting for a reply, you might try the camera under
more normal conditions.  You are far more likely to get
help (either here or from Canon) if you can define the
conditions where it works and where it doesn't work.
I would agree with the others about trying to focus on
low contrast - drives autofocus nuts in many cameras,
but as others have pointed out, "does it work under
normal conditions" is a critical piece of the puzzle.

mikey
digitalrube@yahoo.com - 18 Nov 2006 21:53 GMT
On Nov 18, 3:15 pm, "Mike Fields"

> low contrast - drives autofocus nuts in many cameras,
> but as others have pointed out, "does it work under
> normal conditions" is a critical piece of the puzzle.

Yes, that is the question.  I'm just recovering from a phenomenally
destructive storm and going to call Canon right now and see what they
say.  Low contrast is one thing (if one is shooting in Manual).  The
inability to have the camera fire when you've done everything you can
is another.  Thanks again for articulating what I might say to the
Canon tech folk.
Bill Funk - 19 Nov 2006 14:59 GMT
>On Nov 18, 3:15 pm, "Mike Fields"
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>is another.  Thanks again for articulating what I might say to the
>Canon tech folk.

Are you saying that the camera won't fire at all?
If you can't articulate it here...
Signature

Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

digitalrube@yahoo.com - 28 Nov 2006 11:28 GMT
I thought I'd post a follow-up for those who responded in a helpful way
about my new Digital Rebel's questionable behavior.

I spoke to one great tech support guy, very young, who suggested the
wildly fluctuating exposure settings in the digitalized portion of the
viewfinder were completely normal.  He pointed me to a really excellent
site, apparently maintained by the Japanese arm of Canon
(www.enjoydslr.com).  I was satisfied that the misfiring camera was my
fault.

However, the next morning, Canon was thoughtful enough to send me a
comprehensive customer service survey--and to ask, at the end, if my
problem had been resolved.  When I noted the techie's professionalism
and courtesy, but stressed that the problem really wasn't resolved,
they gave me a "special" 800 number.  The much older tech support man
at this number put me through a series of tests and concluded the
camera was faulty, and that I should send it back.

His primary test was to put the camera in Program Mode, half click the
shutter, and then see if any of the settings *still* fluctuated.  Did
they ever!  (Hope it goes without saying that I was holding the camera
still and pointing it in the same direction, with no change in ambient,
indoor light.)

Anyway, he was very confident that wildly fluctuating exposure readings
meant something inauspicious.  I sent the camera back to Amazon, just
got my new one, and the fluctuations have not reappeared in this unit.

Just wanted to follow-up with you guys.  Everyone who gave
passive-aggression-free help, wish I could buy you a round.
Joan - 28 Nov 2006 12:26 GMT
This is good news and shows that perseverance pays off.

Signature

Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

:I thought I'd post a follow-up for those who responded in a helpful way
: about my new Digital Rebel's questionable behavior.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
: Just wanted to follow-up with you guys.  Everyone who gave
: passive-aggression-free help, wish I could buy you a round.
John McWilliams - 28 Nov 2006 22:03 GMT
> This is good news and shows that perseverance pays off.

Could you please trim your replies??

Signature

lsmft

Joan - 29 Nov 2006 10:21 GMT
If that's all you have to say, why bother?  You're a complete twat.

Signature

Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

: > This is good news and shows that perseverance pays off.
: >
: Could you please trim your replies??
digitalrube@yahoo.com - 28 Nov 2006 23:33 GMT
> This is good news and shows that perseverance pays off.
>
> --
> Joanhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

Thanks, Joan.  (BTW, I looked up your link during the maelstrom of the
past two weeks.  Didn't have time for precise comments, but your photos
are sensitive and attentive.  Does Flickr allow you to make money on
your work?)

Well, everybody, in the spirit of the (travel industry) season, Happy
Dead Week!
Joan - 29 Nov 2006 10:20 GMT
Thanks for the compliments.

No, I haven't seen anything in Flickr about making money.  I've never
had any plans to make money from photography.  As they say in the
classics "Many are called but few are chosen".

I really enjoy Flickr with the groups and community spirit and
friendship of others.

Signature

Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

: Thanks, Joan.  (BTW, I looked up your link during the maelstrom of the
: past two weeks.  Didn't have time for precise comments, but your photos
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
: Well, everybody, in the spirit of the (travel industry) season, Happy
: Dead Week!
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.